IMAGE  EVALUATION 
TEST  TARGET  (MT-3) 


1.0 


I.I 


^A^IIIIM    112,5 


in  9 

IM       2.2 


2.0 


1.8 


1.25      1.4       1.6 

-« 6" 

► 

v: 


<^ 


/}. 


^ 

c%^ 


VI 


^,1 


^^^ 


<^p  ■■>'' 


->. 


(? 


A 


^'^.^    .-'    % 


/^ 


/ 


^ 


/ 


Photographic 

Sciences 
Corporation 


23  WEST  MAIN  STREET 

WEBSTER,  N.Y.  14S80 

(716)  873-4503 


A^. 

%p  ^p 

% 

CIHM/ICMH 

Microfiche 

Series. 


CIHM/ICMH 
Collection  de 
microfiches. 


Canadian  Institute  for  Historical  Microreproductions 


Institut  Canadian  de  microreproductions  historiques 


1980 


Technical  and  Bibliographic  Notes/Notes  techniques  et  bibliographiques 


The  Institute  has  attempted  to  obtain  the  best 
original  copy  available  for  filming.  Features  of  this 
copy  which  may  be  bibliographically  unique, 
which  may  alter  any  of  the  images  in  the 
reproduction,  or  which  may  significantly  change 
the  usual  method  of  filming,  are  checked  below. 


□ 


D 
D 
D 
D 
D 

D 


Coloured  covers/ 
Couverture  de  couleur 


Covers  damaged/ 
Couverture  endommag^e 


Covers  restored  and/or  laminated/ 
Couverture  restaur^e  et/ou  pellicul6e 


n    Cover  title  missing/ 
Le  titre  de  couverture  manque 


D 


Coloured  maps/ 

Cartes  g^ographiques  en  couleur 


Coloured  ink  (i.e.  other  than  blue  or  black)/ 
Encre  de  couleur  (i.e.  autre  que  bleuo  ou  noire) 


Coloured  plates  and/or  illustrations/ 
Planches  et/ou  illustrations  en  couleur 


Bound  with  other  material/ 
Relid  avec  d'autres  documents 

Tight  binding  may  cause  shadows  or  distortion 
along  interior  margin/ 

La  reliure  serr^e  peut  causer  de  I'ombre  ou  de  la 
distortion  le  long  de  la  marge  intdrieure 

m 

Blank  leaves  added  during  restoration  may 
appear  within  the  text.  Whenever  possible,  these 
have  been  omitted  from  filming/ 
II  se  peut  que  certaines  pages  blanches  ajout^es 
lors  d'une  restauration  apparaissent  dans  le  texte, 
mais,  lorsque  cela  dtait  possible,  ces  pages  n'ont 
pas  6t6  film^es. 

Additional  comments:/ 
Commentaires  suppl^mentaires; 


L'Institut  a  microfilm^  le  meilleur  exemplaire 
qu'il  lui  a  6t6  possible  de  se  procurer.  Les  details 
de  cet  exemplaire  qui  sont  peut-dtre  uniques  du 
point  de  vue  bibliogrephique,  qui  peuvent  modifier 
une  image  reproduite,  ou  qui  peuvent  exiger  une 
modification  dans  la  mdthode  normale  de  filmage 
sont  indiqu6s  ci-dessous. 


□    Coloured  pages/ 
Pages  de  couleur 

n    Pages  damaged/ 
Pages  endommagdes 

r~7|    Pages  restored  and/or  laminated/ 
LlJ    Pages  restaur^es  et/ou  pelliculdes 

I      I    Pages  discoloured,  stained  or  foxed/ 


D 


Pages  d^colordes,  tachet6es  ou  piqu6es 

Pages  detached/ 
Pages  d^tach^es 

Showthrough/ 
Transparence 

Quality  of  prir 

Quality  indgale  de  I'impression 


I      I    Pages  detached/ 

I      I    Showthrough/ 

I      I    Quality  of  print  varies/ 


□    Includes  supplementary  material/ 
Comprend  du  materiel  supplementaire 

□    Only  edition  available/ 
Seule  Edition  disponible 


Pages  wholly  or  partially  obscured  by  errata 
slips,  tissues,  etc.,  have  been  refilmeu  to 
ensure  the  best  possible  image/ 
Les  pages  totalement  ou  partiellement 
obscurcies  par  un  feuillet  d'errata,  une  pelure, 
etc.,  ont  6t6  filmdes  d  nouveau  de  fapon  d 
obtenir  la  meilleure  image  possible. 


This  item  is  filmed  at  the  reduction  ratio  checked  below/ 

Ce  document  est  filmd  au  taux  de  reduction  indiqud  ci-dessous. 


10X 

14X 

18X 

22X 

26X 

30X 

~7 

» 

12X 

16X 

20X 

24X 

28X 

32X 

I 

3 

Itails 
i  du 
lodifier 
r  une 
mage 


The  copy  filmed  here  has  been  reproduced  thanks 
to  the  generosity  of: 

Library  of  the  Public 
Archives  of  Canada 


The  images  appearing  here  are  the  best  quality 
possible  considering  the  condition  and  legibility 
of  the  original  copy  and  in  keeping  with  the 
filming  contract  specifications. 


Original  copies  in  printed  paper  covers  are  filmed 
beginning  with  the  front  cover  and  ending  on 
the  last  page  with  a  printed  or  illustrated  impres- 
sion, or  the  back  cover  when  appropriate.  Alt 
other  original  conies  are  filmed  beginning  on  the 
first  page  with  a  printed  or  illustrated  impres- 
s'~n,  and  ending  on  the  last  page  with  a  printed 
or  illustrated  impression. 


IS 


L'exemplaire  filmd  fut  reproduit  grSce  d  la 
gdn6rosit6  de: 

La  bibliothdque  des  Archives 
publiques  du  Canada 

Les  images  suivantes  ont  6t6  reproduites  avec  le 
plus  grand  soin,  compte  tenu  de  la  condition  et 
de  la  nettetd  de  l'exemplaire  film6,  et  en 
conformity  avec  les  conditions  du  contrat  de 
filmage. 

Les  exemplaires  originaux  dont  la  couverture  en 
papier  est  imprimde  sont  filmds  en  commandant 
par  le  premier  plat  et  en  terminant  soit  par  la 
dernidre  page  qui  comporte  une  empreinte 
d'impression  ou  d  illustration,  soit  par  le  second 
plat,  selon  le  cas.  Tous  les  autres  exemplaires 
originaux  sont  filmds  en  commenpant  par  la 
premidre  page  qui  comporte  une  empreinte 
d'impression  ou  d'illustration  et  en  terminant  par 
la  dernidre  page  qui  comporte  une  telle 
empreinte. 


The  last  recorded  frame  on  each  microfiche 
shall  contain  the  symbol  -^  (meaning  "CON- 
TINUED "),  or  the  symbol  V  (meaning   "END  "), 
whichever  applies. 


Un  des  symboles  suivants  apparattra  sur  la 
dernidre  image  de  cheque  microfiche,  selon  le 
cas:  le  symbole  — ♦-  signifie  "A  SUIVRE",  le 
symbole  V  signifie  "FIN". 


Maps,  plates,  charts,  etc.,  may  be  filmed  at 
different  reduction  ratios.  Those  too  large  to  be 
entirely  included  in  one  exposure  are  filmed 
beginning  in  the  upper  left  hand  corner,  left  to 
right  and  top  to  bottom,  as  many  frames  as 
required.  The  following  diagrams  illustrate  the 
method: 


Les  cartes,  planches,  tableaux,  etc.,  peuvent  dtre 
filmds  d  des  taux  de  reduction  diffdrents. 
Lorsque  le  document  est  trop  grand  pour  dtre 
reproduit  en  un  seul  clichd,  il  est  filmd  d  partir 
de  Tangle  sup6rieur  gauche,  de  gauche  d  droite, 
et  de  haut  en  bas,  en  prenant  le  nombre 
d'images  n^cessaire.  Les  diagrammes  suivants 
illustrent  la  mdthode. 


errata 
to 


pelure, 
sn  d 


n 


32X 


1 

2 

3 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

The  Fisheries  Treaty. 


SPEECH 


OF 


HON.  GEORGE  F.  HOAR, 

OFMASSAC  II  U  SETTS. 

In  the  Senate  of  tiie  United  States, 

Tuesday,  July  10,  1888. 


i 


i 


The  Senate  having;  under  consideration  the  FlBheries  Treaty  in  open  execu- 
tive sessiou— 

Mr.  HOAR  said: 

Mr.  Presidknt:  I  make  no  apolojry  for  enterinc  early  tipon  i'lis 
discussion.  TIum  is  the  oldest  que.stion  iu  our  ibroii^n  roh'.iious. 
The  question  of  the  rifijhts  of  her  tishermen  has  r.ungled  with  the 
hisiory  of  Massachusetts  iVoui  the  hegiiiniue!,  as  tlieir  skill  aud 
coiinige  have  Ijeep  from  the  begiuiting  a  chief  part  of  her  glory  and 
priile.  One  of  the  half  do/en  most  faniou'*  imssagcs  iu  English  prose  is 
that  where,  more  than  a  hundred  years  ago,  the  greatest  of  En^ilish 
orators,  in  his  h>st  appeal  to  save  Eiigland  iVoin  the  niudueas  of  her 
tyranny,  paid  his  elo(iuent  homa;je  to  lliese  husbandmen  of  the  sea.  It 
will  never  become  stale  or  commonplace  1o  A  merii'an  ears.  It  is  often 
quoted,  but  we  may  well  repeat  it,  Biuce  the  wit  of  niau  can  not  mend  it. 

Mr.  Edmund  IJnrkeeaid: 

As  lotli*  wealth  wlittih  the  colonies  l)«ve  drawn  from  tlio  sen  hy  thoir  t1«her- 
lea,  you  luiii  all  t)<at  matter  fully  opencil  at  your  bar.  You  surely  lhou(j:!il  tliuse 
aoi|iiiMitim)s  of  vaUie,  for  tliey  seeuiod  evt-ii  to  exoite  your  envy;  ami  yot  tiie 
Bjiirit  Ijy  wliiuli  that  enterprisius  eniployiunut  has  licon  emrciscl  uui^ttt  ritlmr, 
in  my  opinion,  to  liave  raised  your  esteem  and  n<iniirat.ion.  And  pray,  sir, 
■xvlirtt  in  tlie  worUi  i.i  eqni\l  to  itf  1'uf<»  l>y  tlienthur  parts  an  1  loolc  at  tlie  man- 
ner in  wliicii  the  people  of  Now  Knuland  have  of  !nt<B  carried  on  tiie  whale  ll.th- 
crk'H.  Wliilt^  wo  follow  them  anions  the  luniUlins;  mountains  of  ice  and  lie- 
hold  tliempenttratiiiK  into  (!io  frozen  rei'csscsof  HudMou's  i<>\y  and  I)avit)Stralttf, 
wliiist  we  are  looking  for  tlieui  bcnoatli  tiio  Arotic  Ciri.le,  wc  lirur  that  they 
have  pierced  into  tiie  opposite  re|i;io;i  of  polurcidd;  that  ttiey  are  at  the  anti- 
pi)d'.»;*  and  enf;ii;^cd  undt't  tlio  tryy/.vn  oirclc  of  tlie  south.  F;' Helmut  iflmid, 
wliicli  nofniei!  loo  remote  and  romantic  an  object  for  the  j^raHp  of  national  am- 
bition, is  tjul  a  slajre  and  rtMlinu  plu'c  in  the  p;o^^ros«  of  tikeir  victorious  indus- 
try. Nori?<tln>cqnino(!tialhoal  uioroili-cotiraKinuto  tho.m  llian  tlica''C'UmuIated 
wlnler  of  hotli  tiic  poles.  We  Itnow  tliat  wlill»l  noma  of  them  draw  the  line  and 
strike  tlie  harpoon  on  the  coast  of  Al'riea,  others  run  the  loii)^itude  and  pursuo 
their  Kiirautio  (fame  alonptthc  coast  of  I'.raiil.  Xo  sea  hut  what  is  vexed  by  their 
tislieries;  no  climate  that  i.s  not  witness  to  their  toils.  Neitliertho  per.Meveranee 
of  Holland  nor  the  ai  tivity  of  FnuK.'c  nor  the  dexleroun  iind  (Irm  sa^raciti' of 
£llKli.^h  enterprise  ever  carried  this  ujost  perilous  mode  of  hard  iiidustr#^P.UiB 
extent  to  which  ithasbeen  pushed  by  this  recent  people— a  people  who  ai,»*ii  11, 
«s  it  were,  but  in  the  gristle,  Rnd  not  yet  hardened  into  tlie  l)one  of  tnanliootL 
WbuQ  I  contemplato  tlieso  tblnt;8,  when  I  Ituow  that  the  coloniei  jgi  general 

3 


-feij 


4 


owe  liUIt!  or  nothing  to  any  cnre  of  ours,  and  that  they  are  not  squeez«d  Into- 
this  happy  form  hy  the  uoiistraints  of  watrhlul  ami  MUMpioious  xovcrnnieiit,  but 
that,  thniii;ili  u  wise  mid  siihnury  iienlei't,  a  K^'nt-roiis  nature  'las  heeii  HutTered 
t<»  take  her  own  way  to  peilection  :  when  I  reflect  upon  the  rtteotM,  when  I  see- 
how  protiiuhlf  they  have  l)ceii  to  us,  I  feel  all  the  pride  of  power  sink,  and  all 
|iresuuipt><'<i  hi  tlie  wisdom  of  human  contrivances  melt  and  die  away  within 
me.     My  rijjor  icleuts.     I  pardon  something  to  the  spirit  of  liberty. 

The  war  of  the  Revolution,  of  course,  interrupted  for  a  time  the  fish- 
eries of  the  American  colonies.  IJut  the  tisliermen  were  not  idle. 
They  manned  the  little  navy  whose  exploit-s  have  never  yet  received 
from  hision.  its  due  meed  ofprai.se.  They  furiii-ihed  the  ships'  com- 
panies of  Manly  and  Tnckerand  Fiddle  and  Abraham  Whipple.  They 
helped  Fanl  .Jones  to  strike  terror  into  St.  George's  Channel.  In  177(j, 
the  very  iirst  year  of  the  Revolntionary  war,  Aojerican  privateers  cap- 
tued  three  hnudrcd  and  forty-two  Uritish  ve,s.sel.s.  The  fisheries  came 
up  agiiin  alter  the  war.  .\[r.  Jetterson,  the  first  Secretary  of  State, 
comiiieoihd  them  to  the  favor  of  the  nation  in  an  ehiborate  and  admi- 
rable report.  He  says  that  before  the  war  four  thonsmd  men  and 
'J8,0tH)  tons  of  shipping;  were  annually  employed  by  .Massachusetts  in 
the  cod  lishery  alone,  and  four  thousand  men  and  24,000  tons  of  ship- 
pinji  in  the  whale  fishery  alone.  Ife  shows  how  the  energy  of  the  New 
England  lishermen,  aided  by  their  locul  advantage,  had  before  the  war 
driven  Fianee  and  Spain  and  Portugal  from  the  northern  fisheries,  and 
their  rivalry  was  pressing  hard  on  England  herself,  .\lter  the  Revo- 
lution, when  our  fisheries  began  to  revive,  I^iigland  endeavored  to 
allnre  our  fishermen  into  her  dominion  by  a  high  .system  of  bounties 
and  an  absolute  prohibition  of  foreigJ!  fish  in  her  market.s.  She  issued 
an  invitation,  re-enlorced  by  high  bounties  toourti.shermen,  under  the 
general  description  of  "foreigners  who  had  been  employed  in  the  whale 
flsbery,"  to  pass  over  with  their  families  and  vessels  to  the  British 
dominions,  either  in  America  or  in  Europe. 

France  took  the  alarm.     "She  saw,"  as  Mr.  Jefferson  says,  "the 
dangerof  letting  fouror  five  thou.sand seamen,  ot  the  f)e.st  in  the  world, 
be  transferred  to  the  marine  strength  pf  another  nation  and  carryover 
with  them  an  art  which  they  posse.'^sed  almost  exclusively,"    Lala.veite, 
the  illustrious  citizen  both  of  France  and  America,  wrote  a  letter  to- 
dissuade  our  fishermen  from  accepting  the  British  propositi,  and  prom- 
ised that  France  would  do  better  for  them.     The  French  ministry  gave 
a  counter-invitation  and  otVered  a  Ixmnty  of  fifty  livres,  near  $10,  a  ton 
on  every  fishing  vessel  they  would  equip. 

I  have  not  time  tOsjiarrate  the  detail  of  the  contest  between  England 
and  France  for  the  transfer  of  our  fishermen.  We  had  to  contend 
against  bonntics  in  France  an,.  England  and  prohibitory  duties  in  f'^ng- 
land,  for  the  life  of  a  calling  which  Mr.  .JellVrson  declares  was  "too 
poor  a  bu8ine.ss  to  be  lelt  to  itself,  even  with  the  nation  most  advan- 
tageously situated."  All  Senators  are  fantiliar  with  the  policy  of 
bounties  and  duties,  at  times  .separate,  al  times  combined,  with  which 
we  maintained  and  cherished  our  fishipg  industries. 

I  have  seen  with  deep  regret  that  the  '.'resident  of  the  United  States, 
or  .some  person  upon  whose  advice  he  las  acted,. seems  to  think  that 
this  object,  which  the  far-sighted  policy  of  (treat  Britain  and  France 
thought  so  de»sirable  for  them,  of  transferring  foreign  fishermen  from 
their  own  country  to  ours,  is  nnde-sirable.  He  has  hastened  to  put  hiiu- 
self  on  record  by  a  letter  to  the  collector  of  ndstoii,  signed  with  hisown. 
name,  as  intending  to  use  all  the  poweis  vested  in  him  by  law,  evett- 
nnder  the  most  strained  construction,  to  prevent  the  employment  under 
the  American  flag  of  fishermen  of  foreign  origin.     I  do  not  think  many 


.precedents  can  he  found  of  instructions  given  by  the  Departments  to 
their  sul)or<linates  under  the  Hiyuutureof  the  President.  I  am  sure  no 
exaniplt  can  he  t'oiind  in  our  history,  and  I  tliink  none  is  liliely  to  oc- 
cur again,  of  an  Executive  straining  his  powers  and  departi^^g  from  the 
propriety  of  his  stiitiou  to  prevent  an  accession  of  skilled  seamen  to 
America  like  that  which  England  and  France  so  eagerly  strove  to  gain 
at  the  close  of  the  last  century.  They  look  at  the  thing  very  diil'er- 
ently  across  the  border.  When  Vice-Adniiral  Wellesley  was  in  com- 
mand of  the  North  American  fleet,  he  considered  it  his  duty  tocall  tiie 
special  attention  of  the  secretary  of  the  admiralty  to  their  danger,  from 
the  fact  that  colonial  tisheriuen  in  considerable  numbers  man  American 
vessels.     Sir  John  A.  Macdonald  declared  that — 

Tlie  CHiiadiaii  Oovernment  view  with  very  seriotis  concern  the  efTecl  upon 
our  iiiiiriliiiie  populAtion  of  such  dependcnoe  upon  AnnTioan  employpis.  It 
creules  syiiiiiaihy  with  foreij;n  »entiinents  and  iiigtitutions,  and  aH'onIs  oppor- 
tiitiilie»  rr>r  inHtillinx  into  tlie  minds  of  our  people  idctia  and  expeoUilions  alto- 
jetber  iniinicHl  to  liritish  connection.  . 

These  men,  Mr.  President,  come  here  to  abide.  They  are  not  peons 
or  coolies.  Ijhey  are  not  the  property  of  anybody.  They  are  in  th« 
way  of  nobody.  They  are  not  imported  .to  bring  down  or  to  keep  down 
the  wanes  of  other  laborers.  On  the  contrary,  they  enable  the  calling 
in  which  they  find  employment  to  be  more  wiilely  extended,  and  to 
afibrd  occupation  for  many  others,  who  might  not  get  it  withoutthem. 
The  President's  shaft  is  aimed  at  the  wrong  mark.  Among  the  best 
and  most  valued  citizens  on  the  MaKsachuselts  coast,  in  Gloucester,  in 
Marl)lehead,  in  Pfovincetown,  are  to  be  found  many  of  these  brave  and 
skillful  mariners,  whom  our  policy  in  regard  to  our  fisheries  hfis  at- 
tracted from  the  British  provinces  to  take  their  lot  under  the  American 
flag. 

There  arc  threesonrces  of  inforihation  later  than  the  United  States  cen- 
sus of  IKso  from  which  we  can  discover  the  number  and  the  nationality 
of  our  fishermen.  Mas.'^achusetts  took  a  census  in  IHS')  in  which  these 
numbers  ai)pear  in  the  schedule  of  population  and  also  in  a  special  re- 
port on  her  fisheries.  The  United  States  Fishery  Commission  have 
gathered  the  statistics  for  1886. 

The  Massachusetts  fishery  report  gives  14,670  fishermen  engaged  in 
the  fishing  ves.sels  of  Miis.sachusetts.  <)f  these,  11,74:5  were  residents 
of  Massachusetts;  2.93li  were  non-residents  of  Massachu.setts;  and  of 
these  non-residents  9!)8  were  Americans.  '  Of  the  whole  14,676  there 
were  12,741  either  having  their  homes  in  Massi^chusetta  or  American 
residents  in  other  States. 

On  the  other  hand  the  table  of  population  shows  a  total  of  7,080 
fishermen,  of  whom  5.43.1  are  native  or  naturalized  Americans.  Of 
the  aliens  138  are  Irishmen.  But  1,158  are  natives  of  England  or  her 
dependencies  other  than  Ireland. 

Professor  Baird  estimates  the  number  of  persons  employed  in  oar 
fisheries  in  1880  as  131.426.  Of  these  101, 6M4  were  Americans.  The 
value  of  the  fisheries  of  the  sea,  the  great  rivers,  an<i  great  lakes  was 
over  $43.(100,000.  The  fisheries  of  New  England  eiig.iged  37,043  men. 
The  South  Atlantic  Statesengaged  52.418  men ;  the  MiddleStates,  1 4.981 
men;  the  Picific  States  and  Terrilories,  16,803.     (See  Appendix  D.) 

I  insert  the  table  (A)  at  the  close  of  my  remarks.  1  insert  also 
(R)  a  letter  from  the  Comntissioner  of  Fisheries  with  his  estimate  for 
1886,  and  (C)  a  table  from  the  census  of  1880.  From  these  it  will 
seem  probable  that  the  truth  is  somewhere  between  the  Ma8.sa<husettfl 
population  and  fisheries  census      The  proportion  of  American  ti.sfaer- 


6 


men  to  foreigners,  as  it  appenrs  in  each  of  them,  is  suflicient  for  my 
purpose.  It  is  safe  to  say  tliat  a  larjjre  proportion  of  those  not  as  yt't 
naturalizeii  will  be  naturalized.  They  have  little  attathineut  Ittt  for 
the  British  ftu.<^.  President  Cleveland  need  be  under  no  apprelitnsion. 
They  are,  aa  Sii  Joiin  A.  Macdiinald  has  found  nut,  "  in  full  syuii.;ilby 
with  American  sei.timents  and  institutions,"  and  have  "  ideas  audex- 
pecUitions  aIto}i;etlH"i  inimical  to  British  connection." 

As  we  look  hack  upon  the  war  of  1.S12,  Iheie  are  some  things  which 
the  peoi)le  of  New  Eof^iaod  may  well  wish  had  been  otherwise,  liut 
if  there  were  anything  of  aisloyalty  there,  it  all  evaporat.-d  in  words. 
A  few  disloyal  phrases  of  a  convention  at  Hartford,  a  little  Krumblins; 
of  a  governor,  what  are  they  to  the  blaze  of  resplendent  glory  thii/t  rises 
from  the  deeds  of  lier  seamen  ?  The  men  who  censure  the  reluctance 
of  the  Federalists  of  that  day  to  rese.>t  the  provoc^itiou  we  had  received 
from  England  do  not  always  make  sut^cient  allowance  for  the  equal  in- 
sult we  were  receiving  from  France.  The  party  who  opposed  the  war 
with  Kn^jland  were ea'^er enough  to bikearins against  Frame.  They  were 
filled  with  a  morbid  horror  o'' the  power  of  Napoleon.  liut  itwasa  hor- 
ror into  which  no  element  of  cowardice  entei  'd.  They  thought  that  iu 
overcoming  England  we  would  overcome  the  liist  barrier  ag.iiiist  his 
universal  empire,  and  that  in  attacking  P]iig1aid  we  ranged  ourselves 
on  the  sideof  universal  tyranny  against  the  la.sl,hope  of  constitutional 
liberty.  v 

We  can  now  see  that  they  were  wrong.  The  American  people  were 
inspired  by  a  surer  instinct  than  that  of  the  Feder  il  leaders.  The  linal 
judgment  of  history  must  be  that  the  war  of  iHl'i  was  a  righteous  and 
glorious  war.  We  were  compelled  to  it  by  the  impudent  British  pre- 
tension to  search  American  vessels  on  the  high  seas,  and  take  from  tlieia 
every  man  whom  a  midsli.pman  shouhl  suspect,  or  pretend  to  suspect, 
of  being  a  British  sul)ject.  We  had  scarcely  a  friend  anywhere.  The 
haughty  nations  of  Europe  sat  at  theirgates,  scowling  at  the  little  Re- 
public, as  the  live  Norman  champions  in  .Scott's  immoital  story  sat  at 
the  doors  of  their  tent-s  on  ,he  held  of  Ashby  de  la  Zonche.  The  little 
country,  not  thirty  years  old,  hurled  her  mortiil  defiance  at  the  proud- 
est and  strongest  of  them  ai'l,  as  the  young  Saxon  knight  struck  the 
shield  of  Brian  de  Bois  Guilt.ert  with  the  sharp  end  of  his  spear.  We 
began  tha  war  after  England  ban  crushed  the  navyof  every  other  power 
thathad  contended  with  her  by  sea — Holland,  Spain,  Denmark,  Fnnee. 
England  never  had  a  naval  war  in  which  she  wa.s  met,  .ship  to  ship, 
with  a  superiority  in  discipline,  iu  gunnery,  in  seamanship,  and  in  suc- 
cess as  by  us  in  the  war  of  iHl'i.  .This  is  fully  admitted  by  .Vfaj.  Gen. 
Sir  Howard  Uoughus  in  his  treatise  on  naval  gunnery,  the  standard 
English  authority,  j)ublished  with  the  approbation  of  the  Lords  Com- 
missioners of  the  Admiralty.  This  book  was  originally  published  in 
1820,  five  years  after  the  war  ended.  I  have  here  the  fifth  edition, 
the  la.st  i)etbre  the  substitution  of  steam-vessela  and  iron-chuls  for  the 
old  wooden  8hip.s.     He  says: 

The  fleets  of  Kurope  liad  l->een  nwept  from  the  fao^  of  the  ocean  by  the  K<vUaut 
auhleveiuenta  of  the  Brilixh  marine. 

He  goes  on  to  say: 

We  entered  In  1812,  with  too  great  confidence,  intoa  war  with  a  marine  much 
more  expert  than  nur  European  enemtea. 

He  then  proceeds  to  draw  hia  instruction  for  the  conduct  \>f  naval  en- 

ptngements  almost  wholly  from  the  sea  tights  witlj  the  .Auiericaus  ia 

the  war  of  1812.      Look  at  Ids  index: 

Action.  SkvuI:  Hulwi-eii  tliu  ('li«;i«u|ieikkcaiid  theMliannoni  Iwtweenllie  Avon 


7 

•nd  the  Wanp;  1^«t^een  the  Frolic  and  the  Wnnp;  between  the  Oueriiere  knd 
the  ConslituUon  ;  between  the  ilornet  and  the  Peacock ;  between  the  Java  and 
the  Const  it  iilion:  between  the  Macedonia  and  Die  United  Stiile«;  between  th* 
Phoebe  and  the  ElHsez  ;  between  the  President  and  the  Belvidere. 

Here  are  nine  naval  engagements,  the  only  ones  selected  by  the  En- 
glish author  for  the  instruction  of  his  countrymen.  All  of  ihera  were 
combats  between  British  and  American  ships.  In  all  but  two  of  them 
the  Araericiins  were  victorious.  In  one  of  these,  two  British  ships  at- 
tacked the  American  in  a  neutral  port,  when  she  was  disabled, , and  at 
anchor,  one  of  her  top-mnsts  having  been  carried  away  in  a  storm. 

It  is  true  we  made  peace  without  a  formal  relinquishment  by  Great 
Britain  of  the  olmoxious  pretension.  But  it  ia  also  true  that  it  was 
never  heard  of  again. 

The  nation  issued  from  the  war— 

said  John  Quincy  Adams — 

with  ail  ils  rijjlUs  and  liberties  unimpaired,  preserved  as  well  from  the  artlflces 
of  diploiiiacy  iis  from  the  force  of  preponderating  power  upon  their  element,  the 
seas. 

The  Duke  of  Wellington  has  given  a  testimony  still  more  authori- 
tative and  decisive.     I  have  not  seen  it  cited  by  American  historians. 
(After  the  downfall  of  Napoleon  the  duke  was  urged  by  the  Cabinet  to 
take  commsuid  in  America.     He  replies  in  a  letter  to  Lord  Liverpool 
of  November  9,  1814.     He  says: 

I  do  not  promise  to  myself  much  success  there.  If  we  can  not  obtain  a  nayal 
supremacy  on  the  lakes,  I  shall  go  only  to  sijfii  a  peace  which  might  as  well 
be  signed  now.  Yon  have  no  right,  from  the  state  of  the  war,  to  demand  any 
(OonccHsion  of  territory  from  America. 

In  her  contributions,  siicriflces,  and  achievements  in  this  war,  Massa- 
chusetts may  well  challenge  comparison  with  any  other  Americao 
Stfite.  She  raised  fourteen  thousand  men  in  1814.  She  paid  $2,000,- 
000  for  bounties.  One  of  her  fishing  towns,  Marblehead,  had  more 
than  eight  hundred  men  in  Dartmoor  prison  when  the  war  en^ed. 
She  furnished  during  those  three  years  more  men  than  any  other  State. 
The  New  England  States,  which  opposed  the  war,  sent  more  men  into 
the  field  than  the  Southern  States,  which  brought  on  the  contest. 

You  recollect  how  sailors'  rights  were  won. 
Yard  locked  in  yard,  hot  gun  lip  kissing  gun. 

No  man  ever  attributed  want  of  patriotism  to  John  Quincy  Adams. 

Hear  what  he  says  of  the  fishertnen: 

Where  were  they  during  the  war?  They  were  upon  the  oceah  and  upon  th« 
lakes,  fighting  the  battles  of  their  country.  Turn  back  to  the  records  of  your 
Kevolutioii;  ask  Samuel  Tucker,  himself  one  of  the  number,  a  living  example 
of  the  cliHracter  common  to  them  all,  what  were  tlieflshtrmen  of  New  Kngland 
in  the  tug  of  war  for  independence.  Appeal  tothe  heroes  of  all  our  naval  wars; 
ask  the  vBn<pn«her9  of  Algiers  and  Tripoli;  ask  the  redeemers  of  your  citizen* 
from  the  chains  of  servitude,  and  of  your  niition  from  the  humiliation  of  an- 
n\ml  tribute  to  the  barbarians  of  Africa;  call  on  the  champions  of  our  last  strug- 
gles with  Britain;  ask  Hull  and  F?uiiibridge ;  ask  Stewart,  Porter,  and  Mac- 
Donough  what  proportion  of  New  Kngland  flsliermen  were  the  companionsof 
their  victories  and  sealed  the  proudest  of  our  triumphs  with  their  blood. 

We  all  know  how  much  of  the  supply  of  .Vmcrican  seamen,  to  whom 
all  this  waa  due,  csktfie  from  the  American  merchant  marine.  Hut  these 
fisheries  were  the  cradle  of  Navy  and  mercnantservicealike^  I  could  call 
8  hundred  witnesses.     Let  me  cite  but  one. 

Admiral  Luce,  in  his  excellent  address  before  the  United  States  Naval 
Institute  at  Annapolis  in  1H74,  says: 

1  will  yield  to  no  one  in  my  high  appreciation  of  a  true  American  seaman. 
When  found,  as  he  still  maybe  in  our  service,  though  in  a  deplorably  smal  J 
minority,  he  was  one  to  be  proud  of  and  to  respect;  prompt  aud  fearlesa,  fer- 


/ 


8 


llle  tn  rexfiiirces,  pntlent.  even  cheerful  under  adversity,  of  wonderful  eiwlur- 
ance,  inleliiKent  and  nelf-reliunt, and  withal  of  unflinching,  unoomprotiiiHing 
fidflity  to  UU  flatr.  Take  liiui  all  in  all,  I  maintain  that  your  "  true  Yankee 
sailor"  ha?  not  his  equal  in  the  worlil.  ♦  •  •  It  is  related  on  good  authority 
thai  when  the  Constitution  rtUurned  from  Holland,  after  tran.tportlnK  the  specie 
required  to  pfty  the  last  installment  of  our  national  del>t  to  that  country  in  1^12. 
the  term  of  service  of  her  orpw  hrid  expired,  and  a  few  days  after  her  arrival 
they  were  discharged.  Commodore  Hull  immediately  manned  his  ship  by 
drawing  on  the  llsliurraen  of  the  New  Bngland  coast,  and  the  merchant  seamen 
of  Salem,  Newburyport,  Boston,  and  vicinity.  The  response  was  prompt,  and 
it  is  allegt^d  that  when  the  Constitution  soon  after  captured  the  Guerrlere,  of 
her  four  hundred  anil  fifty  saanien,  only  sLxty  had  ever  served  on  board  of  » 
mnn-of-wur. 

Whatever  chan^as  may  l)e  made  by  new  methods  of  intercourse  in 
the  relations  of  uationa  with  each  other,  it  is  still  trne,  and  will  still  be 
true,  as  when  Mr.  Webster  said  it  in  1824,  that — 

High  rank  among  the  nations  results  more  than  from  anything  else  from 
that  military  power  which  we  can  cause  to  be  water-borne,  and  from  that  ex- 
tent of  coiuuieroo  which  we  are  able  to  maintain  throughout  Lhe  world. 

It  will  also  still  be  true,  that  if  America  is  to  have  ships  of  war,  or 
is  ever  again  to  take  her  former  rank  in  peaceful  ocean  commerce,  she 
must  look  to  her  hardy  and  adventurous  fishermen  for  a  large  share  of 
the  supply  of  her  seamen. 

No  .Senator  v>ho  has  to  deal  with  this  immense  interest  will  venture 
rashly  to  disregard  the  authority  of  the  present  head  of  our  Navy.  I 
have  lately  received  this  letter  irom  Admiral  Porter: 

Tokficb  op  the  Admiral,  Washing(on,  D.  C,  May  i,  18S8. 

Mt  Dear  Sib:  Thave  the  honor  to  acknowledge  the  receipt  of  your  commu- 
nication of  May  4  a.«king  my  opinion  of  the  value  of  our  tisheries  as  a  nursery 
for  seamen  for  the  present  Xavy,  which  is  to  be  built  of  iron  and  propelled  by 
steam. 

I  beg  leave  to  say  that  all  our  fisheries  at  the  present  moment  are  more  valuiv* 
ble  as  nurseries  for  naval  seamen  than  they  ever  were  before,  for  our  commei^ 
clal  marine  has  been  almost  obliterated  from  the  ocean. 

In  our  last  war  with  Great  Britain  our  Navy  was  largely  recruited  from  Ma»> 
sachusetts  fishermen,  who  made  the  finest  mei\-of-war'8  men  in  the  world, 
which  was  illustrated  by  their  skill  in  seamanship  and  gunnery,  which  gave 
us  such  great  success  over  our  opponents. 

They  not  only  furnished  seamen  to  the  Navy,  but  manned  that  Immense  fleet 
of  privateers  that  swarmed  the  ocean,  paralyzed  the  British  commerc.;,  and 
caused  a  large  section  of  the  British  people,  led  by  that  great  political  writer, 
William  Cobbett,  to  demand  of  the  Government  that  peace  should  be  secured 
on  any  terms. 

Notwithstanding  the  overwhelming  nnval  power  of  Great  Britain  duringthe 
war,  with  heavy  squadrons  in  every  sea,  we  were  indebted  to  the  New  England 
seamen  and  the  Ijrave  ofllocrs  who  led  them  for  a  success  unparalleled  in  history. 

If  we  had  a  war  to-morrow  we  must  depend  alt^ost  altogether  upon  the  flsb- 
ermen  of  New  Knglnnd  to  man  our  navKl  vessels.  J 

To  show  the  importance  of  having  trained  seanien  in  tiineof  war,  I  will  men- 
tion the  fact  that  the  regiment  of  Marblehead  fishermen  under  John  Glover 
were  employed  to  carry  Washington's  forces  across  the  Delaware  when  he  t-  ii> 
prised  and  captured  the  Hessians.  Without  the  aid  of  the  fishermen  it  is  doubt* 
ful  if  Washington  would  have  undertaken  the  perilous  enterprise,  for  the  fish- 
ermen were  tlie  only  ones  who  coufiidered  the  project  feasible. 

The  ships  that  will  hereafter  be  built  for  the  Navy  will  require  as  good  and 
hardy  sailors  as  have  ever  been  required  before,  and  it  is  to  be  regretted  that 
we  can  not  obtain  the  servioesof  the  fishermen  in  time  of  peace.  Their  present 
calling  is  more  lucrative  than  any  employment  they  can  obtain  in  the  Navy, 
and  there  are  no  sufficient  inducements  held  out  to  them  to  enlist  in  the  Gov- 
ernment service. 

In  timeof  warwith  a  maritimepowertheoocupationof  these  fishermen  would 
be  gone,  and  they  wo>ild  flock  to  enlist  in  the  Navy,  as  they  did  in  the  civil  war, 
when  the  Confederate  ijrivaieers  niuiietheirappearanceoli'oiircoast.  The  ves- 
sels of  our  Navy  may  be  said  at  the  present  time  to  be  manned  almost  entirely 
by  foreigners  who  have  entered  the  service  not  from  devotion  to  the  fiag.  In 
case  war  should  he  suddenly  declared  against"  us  our  ships  abroad  would  be 
obliged  to  return  home,  discharge  their  crews,  and  ship  American  seamen.  In 
a  late  Inspection  of  the  United  States  sh'p  Trenton  the  board  of  inspection  re- 
ported to  me  ««  follows:  "The  crew  is   v  fair  one,  considering  their  want  ot 


lcnowle<lpre  of  the  EiiRUsh  lanjriiaKe"— a  pretty  ««;vere  commentary  on  the  claM 
of  seiiiiieti  wc  enlist  iii  llie  Navy.  Jt  is  very  ile^inthle  thiit  we  aboulU  iKlopt 
«omi'  HNstcra  by  whiuh  we  eouUl  obtain  eiioiiKli  bona  flde  Aim-rican  seamen  to 
Jenven  the  crowd  of  l'ort'i(?iii'n»  now  on  board  u  United  .Stales  vessel  of  war. 
The  crows  of  onr  sliipH  of  war  are  k<J "'''''>".'''  nia<le  up  of  men  from  all  parts  of 
the  world,  larjft'ly  from  the  iScandinavian  race,  who  do  iiot  aire  what  flan  they 
•ervo  under.  There  are  the  descendants  of  the  Huns,  Oolhs,  and  other  barba- 
rians who  once  overran  ICnropc.  They  enlist  in  our  N:ivy  Modcned  in  character, 
but  still  free  lances  as  of  old.  They  serve  for  inoniy.  with  no  sentiment  for  flag 
or  niitionality,  and  possibly  if  it  came  to  an  action  with  a  ship  of  their  own  or  a 
lifi^hborintf  nation,  they  would  haul  down  the  Atuerican  llaj;  and  hoist  that  of 
thfir  own  country. 

The  same  qualities  required  for  the  seamen  of  fifty  years  hro  are  required  for 
the  seiimen  of  vessels  of  war  to-day.  The  better  the  Hcauiun  the  more  easily  be 
will  learn  the  improvements  in  gunnery  and  seamanship,  and  the  best  seamen 
in  the  world  are  those  who  come  from  the  New  En^'and  fisheries.  They  aro 
th<'8tronH:est,  hardiestdassof  men  I  knowof.  They  are  exposed  to  all  wealhern 
and  Ijcar  the  severest  tempests.  They  are  seamen  all  over,  anil  I  will  merely 
add  that  in  1812  the  ol<l  Oonstitulio.i,  whose  (^vreer  is  familiar  to  every  Ameri- 
can, was  manned  almost  altoKcther  by  Ma-ssachusetts  fishermen. 

As  to  any  extra  soienoe  hein^f  required  to  man  our  present  and  projected  shlpa 
of  war.  1  would  remark  that  the  m.tnaKement  of  a  ship  is  easier  than  it  used  to 
l>e.  but  we  re<(uire  the  same  irood  scamnnship  we  had  in  da.vs  irmie  by.  With 
a  sleani-cap.stan  and  steam-winch  twenty  men  can  get  a  larRC  vessel  under 
way.  An  oHicer  on  deck,  a  man  at  the  wheel,  and  one  at  the  lead,  with  the 
above  number  on  <leek  for  Kcneral  pur|)oses,  and  the  ship  eiin  go  to  sea  with 
the  rest  of  the  crew  in  their  hammocks.  Hut  when  the  maeliinery  is  disabled 
and  the  ship  must  rely  on  her  ponderous  yards  and  sails,  we  want  every  man 
to  under.stand  Knglish  and  be  a  seaman  from  the  crown  of  his  head  to  the  sole 
of  his  foot.  The  modern  guns,  it  is  true,  are  larger  than  of  -lUl.  the  machinery 
to  work  them  is  a  little  more  intricate,  but  a  week's  good  drilling  would  teach 
native-born  seamen  all  that  is  essential,  and  a  ship  of  war  at  the  eml  of  that 
period  would  l)e  read.v  for  inspection  b.v  the  board  of  inspection.  When  the 
board  of  inspection  finish  their  examination  of  a  ship,  she  must  go  to  sea  ready 
to  meet  any  enen)v  of  etpial  force,  so  that  what  happened  previous  to  1812,  when 
the  Chcsaijcake  wasdistrraced  by  the  British  ship  Leopard,  can  never  again  oo- 
our  as  long  as  the  board  of  ins]>ection  exists 

If  we  can  in  a  week  drill  a  mongrel  crew  si  .t  every  man  knows  liisvariona 
stations  on  shipljoard.  h'^w  much  easier  woulo  it  V)e  for  us  to  <lo  the  same  thing 
with  a  crew  of  New  Etig.and  fishermen,  hardy  and  active  in  thei;-  persona  and 
Intelligent  beyond  any  set  of  foreign  seamen. 

The  question  of  protection  to  the  New  Kngland  fisheries  and  tlieir  seamen 
•does  not  admit  of  argument,  and  in  my  zeal  on  the  subject  1  may  have  gone  out 
of  my  way  to  prove  to  you  thet  which  you  know  already. 

I  inclose  you  some  statistics  wh id  if  you  have  not  already  got  them,  will  give 
you  the  status  of  our  fisheries  throtighout  the  United  States. 

If  there  is  anything  bearing  on  this  subject  you  would  like  me  to  hunt  up, 
please  let  me  know,  and  I  will  .>ndeavor  to  olUain  it. 

The  statistics  I  inclose  sho  ■  at  a  glance  the  Immense  money  valwe  of  our 
fisheries  and  their  importance  to  the  country.  If  it  had  not  been  for  the  ri.sh- 
eries,  New  England  would  ne%'er  have  been  settled,  for  on  the  first  landing  on 
those  stormy  shores  it  is  likely  the  emigrants  would  have  been  forced  to  go  elso- 
■where  but  for  the  quantities  of  fish,  a  most  fortunafecircutnstance  for  the  Union, 
to  which  New  Englancihas  added  so  many  true  and  loyal  Stales. 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  very  respectfullv.  your  obedient  servant. 

DAVID  D.  POKTEIt,  Admiral. 

Hon.  Gkorok  F.  Hoar, 

United  StoUs  Senate. 

The  statistics  which  were  inclosed  with  the  above  letter  will  be  found 
in  the  appendix  to  these  renuirKs  ( D). 

Nearly  every  important  maritime  power  of  ancient  or  modern  times 
has  owed  the  foundation  of  its  commercial  prosperity  and  its  naval 
strength  to  its  fisheries.  When  these  flourished,  itsstrenyitli  increased. 
When  these  went  to  decay,  the  jiower  of  the  nation  had  departed.  Pro- 
fessor Huxley  tells  us, that  .Sidon  signilies  "a  fishing  place."  Tyre 
was  settled  hv  a  colony  ol  fishermen  from  Sidon.  The  power  of  Carth- 
age was  built  up  by  the  fisheries.  Venice  was  founded  by  fugitives 
from  the  north,  who  betook  themselves  to  the  avocation  of  fishermen. 
<;enoa,  the  birthplnce  of  Columbus,  laid  the  fouiid.ition  of  her  strength 
t)y  usiir^ng  the  fislieiiesof  the  Hosphorus.     The  first  what  f  iu  LoudoD 


10 


was  built  for  the  accommodation  of  tishermen.     Arastenlara  was  orig- 
inally a  village  of  herring  catchers.     It  was  an  ancient  proverb — 

Amstenlfiin  is  foutuleil  on  liorriii;;  Ixmus,  and  Dutchmen's  bodiea  are  full  of 
(lickled  herrings. 

The  naval  greatness  of  England  came  from  the  same  source.  The 
iiiicicnt  rule  of  the  chnrch  which  forbade  the  eatin}?  of  meat  on  Fri- 
day i.s  said  to  have  been  due  to  a  politic  purpoaeio  encourage  fisheries. 
In  15(33  the  British  Farliaruent.  to  encourage  the  hniUlingupot  a  naval 
marine,  piu^sed  an  act  extending  this  prohibition  to  two  more  days  of 
the  week.     The  iu;t  declares  that — 

As  well  for  the  inainteimnce  of  Hliippinx.  the  increase  of  flsliermen  and  miv- 
rines,  mid  the  repairing  of  port  towns,  as  for  the  nparini;  of  the  (lesh  victual  of 
'.he  realm,  it  shiill  not  l>e  lawful  to  eat  meat,  on  \Vedne8<Iay9  and  Saturdays 
'inless  under  a  forfeiture  of  X3  for  ouch  olleiise. 

'Edmund  Winslow,  the  governor  of  I'lymouth,  has  recordetl  that  whea 
King  James  asked  the  envoy  of  the  pilgrims  wiio  went  over  from  I-ey- 
den  to  England  to  tell  him  of  the  place  they  had  fixed  upon  "what 
profits  might  arise  in  that  region,"  the  answer  was  "tishing." 

The  tiehermen  are  the  only  ]>ortiou  of  a  nation  that  maintain  unim- 
paired their  fighting  quality  during  a  long  peace.  Armies  become  en- 
ervated on  a  peace  ostabliahment.  Hut  the  daily  life  of  the  fisherman 
is  a  constant  discipline  in  fe;irle5sness,  endurance,  and  activity.  Our 
fishermen  are  all  we  have  left  on  the  sea  as  a  resource  for  a  sudden  oc- 
ciision. 

If  anything  further  were  wanting  to  show  the  importance  of  this  oc- 
cupation to  national  defense  ami  to  national  wealth  it  would  be  found 
in  British  and  Canadian  testimony.  Our  free-trade  friends  talk  about 
the  duties  on  fish.  They  tell  us  of  the  h.nlship  of  a  tax  on  .so  cheap 
and  wholesome  a  food.  Mr.  President,  we  pay  $(i()0,UOO  a  year  for 
West  Point  and  .\nnapolis.  Canada  exported  from  the  produce  of  her 
fisheries  in  1887  a  value  of  $6,843,;588.  Of  this  we  took  nearly  a  mill- 
ion and  a  half.  Every  dollar  of  that  was  a  payment  to  our  great  rival, 
to  our  only  possible  enemy,  towards  the  support  of  a  naval  school  to 
which  Annapolis  or  Greenwich  is  quite  unimportant. 

The  desire  of  Canada  and  Great  Britain  to  contrat  t  within  the  least 
possible  limits  the  fishing  ground  to  which  America  sliall  have  access, 
and  to  possess  themselves  without  obstruction  of  the  calling  which 
"brings  to  the  great  American  market  its  supply  of  fish  for  food  and  fish- 
oils,  hits  a  vastly  larger  purpose  than  a  mere  struggle  for  a  profitable 
industry,  important  as  that  may  be. 

England  possesses  to-day  the  great  steam  fleet  of  the  world.  She 
has,  subject  to  the  authority  of  her  Queen,  or  under  her  political  or  com- 
mercial control,  three  hundred  and  fifty  millions  of  people,  a  third  of 
the  population  of  the  world.  She  controls  the  commercial  dealings  of 
the  inhabitants  of  12,495.000  sfpiare  miles  of  territory,  an  area  four 
times  AS  great  ;is  that  of  the  Kom  lu  empire.  She  has  taken  possession 
of  all  the  great  routes  of  commerce.  She  steps  from  island  to  continent, 
and  from  continent  to  i.sland,  from  fortress  to  naval  station,  and  from 
naval  station  to  fortress.  Let  me  repeat  a  few  sentences  which  I  ut- 
tered here  last  year: 

England  hiis  not  only  laid  her  hands  on  these  enormous  countries 
and  the  men  who  inhabit  them,  but  the  way  she  has  got  control  of  the 
great  higuways,  the  grea    roads  of  commerce,  is  more  wonderful  still. 

There  are  (bur  great  rouds  by  which  the  commerce  of  the  world  must 
travel  from  nition  to  nation.  There  are  two  (dd  roads  and  two  new 
roads.     The  old  roads  are  down  thr()U;ih  the  South  .\tlantic.     One 


11 


tnms  eastward  by  the  Cape  of  Good  "Hope  into  the  In  m  Ocean*.  One 
turns  we-tward  to  the  Pacific  around  Cape  Horn.  1  lie  two  meet  at 
least  at  Cathay  or  farthest  Itid,  ^linlling  the  globe  with  their  mighty 
and  beneliccnt  chain.  At  every  station,  at  eveiy  step,  on  both,  is  the 
power  of  Eoi^land  planted. 

Half  way  ddwn  the  coast  of  the  eastern  hemisphere,  where  Africa 
juts  on t  into  tho  Atlantic,  are  the  Kn<^li8h  West  Ai'rican  settlements 
and  her  colonies  of  Sierra  Leone  and  the  Gold  Coast.  Just  below  the 
equator  ii  Ascension  Island,  an  English  colony.  Five  decrees  of  lati- 
tude further  we  come  to  St.  Helena,  an  Enj^lish  fortress,  where  the 
great  foe  of  Enfj;Iund  died  a  prisoner  and  an  e.xile.  Tlie  cape  itself,  a 
cape  of  "jiood  hope"  to  no  commerce  but  hers,  with  its  excellent  har- 
)k>ts  of  Cai)e  Town  and  Natal,  is  one  of  her  most  prosperous  colonies. 
Thence,  by  succe-ssive  steps,  Mauritiu.s,  Seychelles,  Chatios,  Muldive, 
Ceylon,  all  British  poaseasious,  India  is  reached.  Every  other  power 
must  pay  tribute  to  her  in  peace,  anil  must  run  the  gauntlet  of  her 
fortresses  and  nav;il  st.itions  in  war. 

Would  yon  <io  westward  through  the  Straits  of  Magellan  or  past  the 
stormy  Cape  Horn?  Powers  in  closest  friendship  with  her  hold  the 
continent  from  the  .southern  line  of  P.razil,  while  her  own  Falkland 
Islands  command  and  menace  the  entrance  to  the  strait  and  the  pas- 
sage round  the  Cape. 

lUit  England  has  not  contented  herself  with  the  ancient  ways.  Her 
commerce  is  guarded  by  a  far  different  statesmanship  from  that  which 
denies  appropriations  to  build  a  navy,  or  to  pay  for  carrying  mails  on 
its  own  ve.s.sels,  or  defend  its  coa.st8;  far  ditrerent  from  that  which  bul- 
lies Mexico  ami  cringes  before  Canada.  She  already  occupies  the  high- 
ways of  the  future.  Commerce  hereafter  is  to  seek  direct  paths  though 
continents  miist  be  severed.  Here  again  are  two  roads,  eastward  and 
westward.  One  through  the  Mediterranean  Sea  already  (aits  .Asia  and 
Africa  in  twain  and  passes  out  through  the  Red  Sea  to  the  Indian 
Ocean.  The  other,  not  yet  open,  is  to  divide  our  own  continent  at 
Nicaragua  or  Panama,  or  to  cross  it  at  Tebuantepec. 

Whoever  shall  follow  either  pathway,  except  Teliuantepec,  must  do- 
so  at  the  mercy  of  England.  She  holds  Gibraltar,  tiii>  impregnable 
gateway  of  the  Mediterranean.  Half  way  from  Gibraltar  to  Egypt  is 
her  mighty  naval  station  of  Malta,  which  cgnimands  both  shores  of  the 
Mediterranean.  Hugging  the  Asiatic  coast  is  Cypress,  her  newpos-ses- 
sion,  whose  purch;ise  was  almost  the  last  act  of  Lord  Beaconstield. 
Suez  itself  she  has  taken  from  the  improvident  iiands  of  Fiance,  while 
at  the  narrow  entrance  and  exit  of  the  Ked  Sea  she  holds  Aden  and 
Perira,  and  beyond,  on  the  way  to  India,  the  Island  of  Socotra.  She 
commands  the  great  eastern  pathway  of  commerce  from  Europe  to  In- 
dia and  China  almost  iif  absolutely  as  the  river  Thames. 

Turning  to  the  westward  route,  our  position  on  the  Gulf  of  Mexico 
will  secure  to  our  three  Southern  ports  convenient  accesd  to  the  canal 
wherever  it  may  be.  But  all  other  commerce  must  pass  the  line  of 
sentinels  which  the  foresight  of  p^ugland  has  already  armed  and  sta- 
tioned at  the  entrance  to  the  Gulf.  The  Bermudas,  the  Bahamas,  the 
Leeward  and  Windward  Islands,  .Tamaica,  and  Trinidad  form  a  com- 
plete blockade,  while  British  Honduras  lies  close  to  the  ciistern  mouth 
of  the  proposed  canal  of  Nicaragua. 

Of  the  forty  chief  West  Indian  Islands  European  powers  own  all  but 
one,  the  seat  of  the  black  Republic  of  Hayti  and  St.  Domingo.  Eng- 
land herself  owns  thirteen  beside  the  Bahamas  and  the  Bermuda."?. 

If  we  ever  have  a  contest  with  her  for  a  canal  at  Nicaragua  or  Panama^ 


12 


Irer  island  of  Jamaica  stands  guard  at  the  entrance  of  the  Caribbean 
Sea  and  the  iiay  orHondiiias. 

She  is  now  addinn  to  all  this  the  land  route  across  Canada.  She  is 
addin;^'  this  last  and  stron<^est  link  to  the  chain  which  is  to  bind  China 
and  Japan  to  her  chariot,  girdling  the  globe  anew  in  the  northern  lat- 
itude where  tlie  degrees  of  longitude  and  the  circles  become  smaller. 
She  is  building  a  strong  fortitici\tion  at  Esquiraalt,  where  Vancouver 
Island,  which  the  weakness  of  President  Polk  surrendered  to  her.  thrusts 
itself  into  our  territory,  while  the  guns  of  Halifax  threaten  ua  on  Ihe 

©ilSt. 

At  the  same  time  Canada,  aided  "by  British  wealth,  is  developing  her 
railroad  system  with  wonderful  liberality  and  wisdom,  so  that  the 
blood  of  commerce,  even  that  which  comes  from  our  own  veins,  may 
feed  her  mighty  arteries. 

Ifere  are  a  lew  of  the  enterprises  she  is  just  undertaking  or  accom- 
plishing, either  as  a  government  or  by  corporations  under  her  control. 
Kemeinber  that  all  this  is  in  addition  to  her  great  interoceanic  system 
of  communication  which  the  Senator  from  Maine  so  well  described  the 
other  day. 

First.  An  important  line  of  railroad  constructed  last  year,  called  the 
Duluth,  South  Shore  aud  Atlantic,  extending  from  the  Gogetiic  iron 
range  of  Lake  Superior  to  the  Sault  Ste.  Marie,  has,  turordiug  to  re- 
cent advices,  been  pur(ha.sed  Irjy  the  Canadian  Pacific  Ivailway.  It  will 
no  doubt  become  an  important  feeder  to  that  railway. 

Second.  A  Canadian  company  has  recently  completed  a  bridge  across 
the  Sault  St     Marie. 

Third.  The  Canadian  government  within  the  last  thirty  days  has  def- 
initely deciiled  upon  andarrangementsare  made  for  buildingaship  canal 
between  Lake  .Superior  aud  Lake  Michigan,  on  the  Canadiiui  side  of 
the  strait,  and  in  opposition  to  the  canal  at  that  point  on  the  Amer- 
ican side,  built  aud  owned  by  the  Government  of  the  United  State,' . 

Fdurth.  A  well-detined  project  exists  for  building  a  combined  ship 
<!anal  and  ship-railway  from  Georgian  Bay,  leading  down  from  Lake 
Huron  to  Lake  Ontario,  near  Toronto.  The  total  distance  is  abort  100 
miles,  of  which  40  miles  will  be  a  dredged  <%inal  at  lake  level  and 
60  miles  by  a  ship-railway.  The  object  of  this  route  is  to  avoid  the 
tortuous  and  expensive  navigation  through  the  St.  Clair  flats,  Lake 
Erie,  and  the  Welland  Canal.  It  will  shorten  the  distance  from  the 
Sault  Ste.  Marie  to  Toronto  'J'20  miles. 

Fifth.  The  Canadian  Governmeut  is  engaged  in  improving  the  St. 
Lawrence  system  from  Lake  Erie  to  Montreal,  the  total  cost  of  which 
<?ompleted  will  be  about  $")((, 000, 000.  Below  Montreal  it  hiis  deepened 
the  St.  Lawrence  Kiver  to25lectdepth,  and  is  continuing  the  improve- 
ment with  the  intention  of  deepening  it  to  "27^  and  then  to  30  feet. 
It  ha.s  expended  on  this  work  probably  over  ;fi!{,000,000. 

Sixth.  The  Dominion  (Jovernmeut  has  subsidized,  or  rather  guaran- 
tied, 5  per  cent,  interest  on  the  cost  of  construction  of  the  Chignecto 
ship-railway  to  be  builtacrosstheisthnms  between  Nova  Scotia  and  New 
Brunswick.  The  cost  of  this  work  is  estimated  to  be  over  J4,t)00,0no. 
Therftis  riJ  doubt  that  with  the  8ucce.s,sful  completion  and  operation 
of  this  ship-railway,  the  Georgian  Bay  ship-railway  will  be  at  once 
commeiMed  under  the  auspices  aud  w'ththe  assistance  of  the  Doniuion 
Coverunient. 

Let  i)\e  have  permission  to  read  here  a  few  sentences  from  an  able 
pamphlet  by  Mr.  Uouriuot,  the  accomplished  c^erk  uf  the  Canadian 


13 


Flonse  or  Commons.     They  contain  also  the  weighty  opiuiou  of  thts- 
M^rqnis  of  Lansdowue,  hite  govenior-f^eneral. 

In  any  plan  of  iniperinl  defense  Canada  luimt  henceforth  perform  an  iiupor- 
tanl  pari.  On  her  AUunticand  Pacific  coasts  are  the  finest  harbors  of  the  world 
and  enorinoiis  deposits  of  bituminous  coal  available  for  steam  purposes.  Hal- 
ifax is  aslrongly  foriided  port  with  a  laryfe  dock-yard;  and  at  Jjouisburtj; — now 
desohite,  hut  ouoe  a  famous  fortress  of  the  French-  could  well  be  established 
another  iuiportiuitslaiiou  for  a  naval  squadron.  Both  at  these  places  and  in 
British  Columbia  can  be  formed  those  coaling  stations  whicli,  as  Captain  Co- 
lomb  has  pointed  out,  are  essential  as  strategical  positions.  The  present  gov- 
ern or-jjeneral  of  Canada,  in  a  recent  speech,  referred  to  the  important  works  thai 
fare  now  in  course  of  construction  on  the  I'acific  coast  for  purposes  of  dtjfense. 
"  Yon  have  here  Estiuimalt,"  he  i-aid,"  anaval  station  likely  to  become  on«of',i»e 
grealestand  most  iinportantstrorijrholdsot  theempire.  You  have  a  co.tl  supply 
sufllcieut  for  all  the  navies  of  the.  v»,.rld.  You  have  a  lineof  railway  wliich  is 
ready  to  bring  that  coal  up  to  the  harbor  of  Esquimalt.  You  will  shortly  have 
agraving-dock  capable  of  accommodating  all  but  one  or  two  of  H.r  Majesty's 
largest  ships.  You  have  in  short  all  the  conditions  requisite  for  what  I  believe 
is  s|>oken  ot  as  a  plnre  d'nnnes  ;  but  until  now  tlmtpiace  d'nrmes  has  been  inac- 
cessible except  by  sea.  We  shall  henceforth  be  able  to  bring  8'ii)plies,  stores.  ^ 
and  material  of  war  by  an  alternative  route,  direct,  expeditions,  and  lyin^  for 
more  than  half  its  way  over  Uritish  territory." 

An  astute  statesman,  the  Marquis  of  I^ansdowne,  fully  appreciates  the  Impe- 
rial iinpi>rtiitieeof  the  Caiiadim-  l^wilic  Hail  way  as  a  means  of  keeping  open  the 
oornmimiv  atious  between  iCiigland  and  her  dependencies  in  the  east,  and  of 
strengthening  the  defenses  of  the  empire  at  large.  Posies-'ing,  hs  she  docs,  the 
great  steam-llcet  of  the  world,  and  the  power  of  increasing  it  to  still  larger  pro- 
portions, she  can  always  maintain  a  steady  and  secure  coniinnnication  with 
China,  .Fapan,  .\ustralia,  and  tvenwith  India,  and  all  other  countries  in  which 
she  hiis  important  interests  at  stake.  From  her  depots  at  Halifax,  or  other  places 
on  llit^  .vLiiuiti':  coast  orthe  Dominion,  she  can  in  four  days  reach  the  shores  of 
the  I'aoilicaiid  supply  a  .'loet  ordered  to  protect  her  interests  in  the  east,  should 
they  ever  be  threatened  by  Russia  or  any  other  power.  The  fishermen  and  sail- 
ors of  the  Dominion  mti.«t  prove  an  element  of  great  strength  in  theinaintenance- 
of  the  lino  of  cornmunicatio  •  with  England  and  those  countries  with  which  she 
is  politically  or  commeieially  idei.liUcd.  Thev  can  man  the  vessels  necessary 
to  protects  our  |)orts,  and  otherwise  asrist  in  the  naval  defenses  of  the  empire. 
A  thousand  stalwart  llshermen  from  Nova  Scotia  would  aid  materially  in  the 
defense  of  J'.ritish  Columbia  or  any  other  seotion  of  Canada. 

Looking,  then,  at  the  maritime  industries  of  Canada,  from  an  imperial  as  well 
as  a  purely  commercial  standpoint,  we  can  not  fail  to  see  how  intimately  con- 
nected they  are  with  the  security  of  the  empire.  We  till  know  that  no  country 
can  bo  truly  great  that  has  not  a  seaboard  and  does  not  follow  maritime  pur- 
suits. Spain  sank  low  in  the  scale  of  nations  as  her  nniritinie  power  doilined 
with  the  loss  of  her  great  colonie.i.  The  prf>8perity  of  Italy  has  increased  with 
the  growth  of  her  commerce  and  shipping,  and  shu  ne  -d  no  longer  lament  the 
palmy  days  of  Genoa  and  Venice.  We  all  know  why  St.  Petersburg  was  built 
on  a  marsh,  and  the  history  of  this  century  is  replete  with  the  evidence  of  the 
desire  of  Russia  to  establish  her.-elf  within  the  Oolden  Horn.  France  has  fed  her 
navy  from  the  hardy  Uretons  and  Normans  who  haveserved  arudeapprenllce- 
Bl-.ip  on  the  banks  Newfountlland.  (Canada,  as  yet  with  a  popiilatipn  of  about 
five  million  souls,  already  possesses  a  mariwe  greater  tlmn  that  of  Uussin,  (Jer- 
many,  Italy,  or  France,  Prosperous  as  may  be  hereafter  her  commerce  in  man- 
ufactures or  in  agricultural  products,  it  is  on  her  rich  fh  'series  must  always  rest 
in  a  large  nieas\ire  her  maritime  greet ness. 

To  mtiintaiii  the  corarnnnicatioiis  with  the  East  throttj^h  Canada,  ta 
keep  o]ien  this  imperial  highway  at  hoth  extremities,  tlie  sixty  thon- 
eand  fishermen  of  the  Dominion  must  form  an  altno.stindispensahle  ele- 
ment of  greatest  strength.  They  will  issue  out  from  Halifax  atone 
extremity  of  the  great  continental  line,  and  Irom  Vancoiivers  Island  at 
the  other,  forming,  in  time  of  war,  a  perpetual  menace  to  ourcommerce 
and  to  ouf-  coasts. 

This  is  no  controversy  as  to  the  profit  of  a  few  thousand  men  in  their 
business.  They  could  doubtless  find  profitable  employment  elsewnrre. 
It  is  a  struggle  on  the  part  of  Great  Britain  and  Canada  to  increase 
theirnaval  strength  and  diminish  ours;  to  increase  the  numbers  of  a  naval 
school  whose  graduates  will  be  a  constant  threat  to  oar  commerce  io. 
time  of  war,  ^th  on  the  Atlantic  and  the  Pacific. 


1 


14 


Now,  Mr.  President,  it  w;us  to  adjust  the  relations  between  these  two 
flatioDS  in  regard  to  this  great  interest,  so  vital  to  the  strength  and  so 
important  to  the  well'are  of  both,  that  the  Administration  solicited  the 
negotiation  whii-h  h;is  resulted  in  the  present  treaty.  It  has  but  one 
avowed  object.  That  is  to  promote  the  convenience  and  define  the 
rights  of  American  lishermen  and  protect  them  against  unfriendly  in- 
terference as  they  pursue  their  calling.  Yet,  is  it  not  a  little  remarka- 
ble that  there  is  not  tabe  fonml  throughout  the  length  and  breadth  of 
the  land,  so  far  as  I  can  hear,  a  single  fisherman  who  does  not  deem 
its  provisions  an  outrage?  So  far  as  the  expressions  of  their  opinions 
come  to  me  and  to  ray  colleague  in  our  corraspondeuce;  so  far  as  we 
hear  from  public  meetings  froui  the  towns  where  the  men  interested 
in  the  fisheries  dwell;  so  ftir  as  we  can  le^rn  from  our  colleagues  who 
represent  those  districts  in  the  other  House;  so  far  as  the  associations 
o!  fishermen  have  taken  action ;  so  far  as  we  get  the  ut*  >rance  of  the  presa 
or  tlie  conclusions  of  men  who  have  had  to  deal  officially  or  under  im- 
portant responsibility  with  the  matter  hovetofore,  there  is  one  concur- 
rent expression  of  concern,  alarm,  disapproval,  indignation. 

Here  is  the  action  of  the  city  council  of  Gloucester,  now  the  chief 
fisliiug  port  of  the  country.  There  is  no  distinction  of  party  in  that 
city  on  this-question.     (Hee  Appendix  E. ) 

ITereare  thepreamV)le  and  resolutions  of  the  Gloucester  Mariners'  As- 
sociation, siguod  by  144  masters  of  vessels.  You  can  see  something  of 
the  political  feeling  of  some  of  these  men  from  the  names  they  give 
their  vessels.  Here  is  the  schooner  .Senator  Alorgan,  and  the  schooner 
Senator  Saulsbury,  side  by  side,  with  the  schooner  .John  G.  Whittier 
ami  the' schooner  George  F.  Etlmunds.     (See  Appendix  F. ) 

The  New  York  Board  of  Trade  and  Transportation  express  the  views 
of  business  men  of  that  city  in  oppo:iition  to  negotiation  on  this  subject. 
(See  Appendix  G.) 

The  Secretary  of  State  thinks — 

Tliore  is  not  a.jnstund  reiisonable  complaint  on  the  part  of  our  A  merican  ftsh- 
enuen  for  which  this  treaty  does  not  provide  a  remedy  'ind  promise  a  safeguard 
in  tlie  future. 

How  doeA  it  happen  that  no  single  American  fisherman  haa  found  it 
out?  Why,  Mr,  J5ayard,  when  he  wrote  that  letter  to  his  Boston  .sup- 
porters, must  have  singularly  forgotten  that  he  had  adjourned  theques? 
lion  of  remedy  for  every  one  of  the  complaints  whii'h  he  had  over  and 
over  again  in  his  diplouiatic  correspondenco  declared  to  be  just  and 
reasonalde  to  a  remote  and  uncertain  iture.  Here,  Mr.  President,  is 
the  resolution  of  the  Gloucester  Hoard  if  Trade.     (See  Appendix  H.) 

Here  are  the  resolutions  of  the  Anu;rican  Fishery  Union.  (See  Ap- 
pendix !.■) 

1  leave  to  Slenatora  from  other  States  to  make  known  the  sentiments 
of  their  own  constituents. 

J  ha^e  si'cn  somewhere  the  charge  that  the  oi>positioa  to  this  treaty 
had  its  origin  in  the  prejudice  of  party.  Never  was  a  calumny  more 
unfounded.  .  Tiie  earliest  and  most  earnest  voices  of  remonstrance  have 
come  from  those  eminent  Democrats  who  have  had  occasion  to  study 
this  question  in  times  past.  Mr.  Charles  Levi  WoodhuFy,  who  bears  a 
name  that  has  been  sx  synonym  for  pure  and  undiluted  Hemocracy  for 
generations;  Mr.  Richard  S.  SpofTord,  the  last  Demo<!raticciindidale  for 
Congress  in  the  Gloucester  distrJit;  Mr.  Trescott,  counsel  for  the  United 
fitates  at  Haliliix,  in  1878,  the  most  accomplished  American  writer  on 
our  diplomatic  history-  -the  American  feeling  of  these  men  broke  away 


f 


15 

from  their  Demof-racy — or  rather,  they  found  ni.'inconsisteucy  between 
patriotism  aud  Democracy  as  they  had  learned  it. 

Mr.  President,  the  whole  Democratic  paity  had  lully  committed  itself 
to  another  and  very  dift'erent  policy  of  dealing  with  this  subject.  It 
will  be  remembered  that  the  President,  in  his  me.4sage  ot  December, 
1885,  made  this  recommendation: 

In  the  interest  of  f>:oo(l  neighborhood  and  of  the  commercial  intercourse  of 
adjacent  oouimunitieH,  the  qtiestion  of  the  Nortli  American  fisheries  is  one  of 
much  importunce.  Following  out  tin;  information  t;i\  in  by  me  wlien  llie  ex- 
tensory  urranKPment  above  described  waa  negotiated,  I  recommend  that  tlie 
Congress  provide  for  tlie  appointment  of  a  commiasion  in  wliicli  tlie  Govern- 
ments of  tl»e  United  States  and  Great  Britain  sliall  be  respectively  represented, 
charged  witli  the  consideration  and  settlement,  upon  a  just,  equitable,  and  hon- 
orable basis,  of  the  entire  question  of  the  fishing  rightn  of  the  two  GovcrTiments 
and  thoir  respective  citizens  on  the  coast  of  the  United  States  and  liritisU  North 
America, 

April  18,  1886,  the  Senate  passed  this  resolution  as  a  re-ponse  to  the 
President's  recommendation: 

JResfilved,  Tliat  in  the  opinion  of  the  Senate  the  appointment  of  a  commission 
In  whicli  tne  Govcrnmenls  of  the  Uniteii  Hiates  ami  Grent  liritain  sliall  bo  rep- 
represented,  charged  witli  (lie  consideration  and  seltlemint  of  the  fishing  rights 
of  the  two  Qoveriiment-)  on  tlie  oasts  of  the  United  States  and  iirilibh  North 
America,  ought  not  to  be  provided  for  by  Congress. 

This  was  adopted  by  a^vote  of  38  to  1 0,  every  Republican  Senatcn-  who 
voted  or  was  present  heinw  in  (he  affirmative  and  the  following  Demo- 
crats: UuovvN,  BuTLKli,  Fair,  GuuM.VN,  llAiuas,  McPniiiusox,  Maxey, 
MoiuiAN,  Payne. 

But  this  is  not  all.  The  Pre.sident  recalled  the  subject  to  the  atten- 
tion of  Congress  in  his  next  annual  message,  in  which  he  declared  that 
the  recomnieudation  of  his  last  message  had  been  "met  by  an  adverse 
vote  in  the  Senate."  Congress  theieu})0u  passed  the  statute  of  March 
3, 1S87,  entitled  "  An  act  authoriziug  the  President  of  the  United  States 
to  ])rotect  and  defend  the  rights  of  .Vmcrican  tishiug  vessels,"  etc.  This 
p;issed  the  Senate  by  au  unanimous  vote  on  the  yeas  and  Jiays,  save  one. 
The  Democratic  House  proposed  a  still  more  stringent  measure  of  re- 
dress, desiring  to  cut  ofi"  intercourse  with  Canada  by  land  as  well  asby 
sea.  The  report  of  their  Committee  on  Foreign  Alfaiis,  as  well  as  the 
letter  of  Secretary  Manning,  which  is  a)>peii(h'd  to  it,  denounces  the 
conductof  Canada  as  "inliumau,"  "  in  violation  of  tieaty  obligation," 
aud  "uncivilized."  The  debate  showed  that  Dctuuoratic  Senators  vied 
with  Republican  Senators  in  their  expressions  of  indignation.  The  Sen- 
ator from  Delaware  interposed  in  the  speech  of  tlu*  Senator  from  Maine 
a  reminder  that  the  Secretary  of  State  liad  gone  as  far  tis  that  Senator 
himself  in  expressions  of  indignation  itt  the  outrages  inllicted  on  our 
shipping.  The  declarations  of  the  S( cretary  of  State  in  his  correspond- 
ence with  our  minister  at  St.  .James,  and  the  P)ritish  minister  here,  the 
able  letters  of  Mr.  Piielps.  the  doctriiu^s  laid  down  by  .Mr.  Wharton, 
the  present  Solicitor  of  tlie  Stale  Department,  in  his  Digest  of  Interna- 
tional Law;  the  admirable  letter  of  Secretary  Manning  to  the  House ol 
Representatives;  the  utterances  of  Demoviatic  Seniitor^,  notai)ly  the 
Senator  J'rom  Alabama,  on  this  (loor,  are  all  in  contradiction  of  the  prin- 
ciples and  the  policy  of  this  treaty.  If,  for  this  lirst  lime  in  nearly 
seventy  years,  party  lines  have  been  drawn  in  our  foreign  relations,  it 
ia  done  now,  at  the  bidding  of  the  .Administration  by  a  total  an<l  in- 
stant change  of  front  on  the  part  of  its  supporters. 

These  votes  and  this  action  are  a  censure  in  advance  of  the  whole  j>ol- 
icy  of  the  present  negotiation.  They  announce  the  jiolicy  of  the  Dem- 
o<jatic  party  in  tones  that  can  not  b«  mistaken.     A  series  of  insults  to 


16 


the  American  fla;^,  a  policy  of  persistent  nn friendliness,  the  refusal  of 
the  c'oiiiniou  intcniiitioniil  hosp'itulities  had  been  inaugurated  for  the 
purpose  of  compf Uiny;  aclian^e  in  our  donustic  le;jislation.  It  was  that 
for  which  Congie«s.  without  distinction  of  party  and  with  tlie  nearly 
unanimous  approval  of  tlie  people  withoutdistinction  of  party,  placed 
in  the  hands  of  the  I'resident  a  simple,  direct,  peaceful,  but  ample  and 
most  effect ual  means  of  redress.  The  Administration  in  this  nej^otia- 
tion  hasdisrcgaided  the  authorizi  d  expression  of  the  will  of  the  Amer- 
ican people,  ifthere  can  be  such  unthorized  expression.  We  placed  in 
the  h;uids  of  the  President  a  simple  means  (or  a  simple  purpose.  In- 
stead of  usjoij  that  means,  the  whole  American  complaint  isjwstponed 
to  a  remote  and  most  niicerfain  future.  Neither  apolojjy  nor  compen- 
sation, neither  indemnity  tor  the  past  nor  security  t'ov  time  to  come  i» 
proposed.      Insiciid,  we  have  this  most  extraordinary  treaty. 

Hetore  callinvc  attention  to  it,"  terms  I  wish  to  make  one  other  ob- 
servation. That  is.  that  tiie  Administration  seems  to  have  consulted 
nobody.  I  can  not  learn  that  in  the  pro<;re.«s  of  this  negotiation  any 
representative  of  tlie  interests  to  he  atleeteii  hxs  been  admitted  to  its 
contidence.  When  the  \Va.shin_'ton  treaty  of  1H71  was  in  progress  the 
Senate  was  kept  in  session  far  into  .Mav.  Its  members  on  both  sides 
were  constantly  consulted  and  kept  advised  either  by  the  commission- 
ers or  the  President.  When  tlie  .\sliburton  treaty  was  negotiated, 
Massachusetts  and  Maine,  the  States  chiefly  interested  in  the  bound- 
aries in  dispute,  were  invited  to  ippoint  commissioners,  who  were  con- 
statilly  in  atteni  iaiice.  During  this  whole  negi>tiation,  as  during  that 
which  preceded  the  Halifax  award  and  that  wliich  preceded  theCJeneva 
awar  ,  the  leading  statesmen  of  Canada  were  C(mstantly  consulted 
by  till-  M-presentatives  of  Great  Britain,  .\rbitrators  proposed  by  ua 
were  r  •i'-i-tcd  in  deference  to  Canada's  objection.  One  ot  the  Briti'^h 
commt-sKiuera  is  understood  to  have  repaired  to  Canada  during  the 
diseu  -i.iM,  which  was  interinitied  for  that  purpose.  Yet  neither  my 
collea;Uf  nor  myself,  neither  of  thedisMnguished  Senators  from  Maine, 
no  npir  iiitative  of  a  lishing  district  in  the  other  Ilonse,  no  member 
of  this  liody.  the  constitutional  adviser  of  the  President  and  the  con- 
stiiuiion  (1  deposit^iry  with  him  o.  the  treaty  making  power,  is  admitted 
or  con  1  N'd  in  this  important  matter  until  the  concessions  to  Canada 
are  al  omde  and  the  President  and  Secretary  come  t)efore  the  public 
with  111'  1  declaration  Jbat  we  have  got  all  by  this  treaty  that  we  are 
justly  iin  I  equitably  ciuitled  to  demaiul. 

Ore  ,'  !;ritain  and  Canada  were  represented  on  their  part  by  trained 
dip'"  :i-t.s.  The  British  minister  at  Washington,  like  his  predeces- 
sor- i  's  diplomacy  the  business  of  his  life,  and.  as  is  well  known, 
oc»ii  >,-  1  very  high  place  in  that  profes'sion  TheCanadian  represent- 
alP'  '  Charles  Tupper.  has  made  the  lishery  interests  of  Canadatho 
tuii  I  liletime.     Our  coininis,sion,  on  the  other  hand,  worthy  and 

able  ■  the  gentleni'i)  who  eonposid  it,  was  improvised  fVirtheoo- 

C4I  •  \either  ol  ih'-m   proha'tl  v  hud  nny  considerable  knowledge  of 

thf  in  i|uestioii  until  iiis  olVK-ial  relation  to  it  began.      I  do  not 

com  if  this.     It  is  uniortnnitejv  the  h  ihit  of  the  United  State.-? 

in  I  lint  of  our  lorei  ^n  itjtcreourse.      But  it  rendered  the  refusal 

oi  I  iiimstralion  to  avaM  'i-<'li  of  the  usual  means  of  informatioa 

an  speciiilly  uiih  ip  iv  in  rsnsiilis 

\  <  N"  10.      If  the   -e  '   ■    1    "iiM   M.tssaclinsetts  will  pennit  me, 

I  -  '■<*',  to  iisk  hnn,  »vli  .1  I.  iii>  .  p   ii  iij  of  I'lesidbut  Angell,  whrf 

w.i  i  lie  comml^Hlon  f 


17 


Mr.  HOAR.  I  do  not  think  it  is  qnite  proper  for  the  Senator  to  »sk 
my  opiuinn  as  to  Prt'sidftit  Ancell,  but  I  am  very  happy  to  stiite  it. 
I  do  not  ti  ink,  however,  it  is  right  to  ask  uiy  opinion.  The  Senator 
might  ask  juy  opinion  of  some  gentleman  whom  I  do  not  respect.  I 
respect  President  Angell  very  highly,  but  I  am  not  aware  that  Presi- 
dent Angell — to  use  the  graphic  expression  of  anotiier  person — ever 
aaw  a  mackerel  until  it  came  "from  the  gridiron.  A  gentleman  of  Mich- 
igan          _ 

He  was  born  in  New  England. 
Suppose  he  wns 

A  native  of  Uhode  Island. 


Mr. 
Mr. 
Mr. 

Mr. 


PAYNE. 
HOAR. 
PAYNE. 
HOAR. 


Suppose  he  is  a  native  of  Rhode  Island;  there  are  na- 
tives of  Rhode  Island  by  the  hundreds  and  thousands  who  have  no 
knowledge  of  the  laws  and  rights  of  tisheries.  Why  did  he  not  coi- 
sult  with  gentlemen  from  Uhode  Island  who  represent  tliat  inttr 
est?  Why  did  he  not  consult  some  representative  of  tlie  ti.shing  in- 
terests in  the  other  House?  Why  did  he  not  consult  some  leading 
representativ'i  of  the  fishing  interests  in  this  body? 

Mr.  PAYNE  Associated  with  the  commission  on  our  part  was  one 
of  the  leading  lawyers  in  the  country,  Mr.  Putnam. 

Mr.  HOAR.  An  eminent  lawyer,  my  personal  friend,  whom  I  highly 
value  and  esteem;  but  it  shows  the  utter  boy's  play  and  utter  igno- 
rance of  the  importance  of  the  rights  that  are  at  stake  when  one  ot  the 
Senators  of  the  United  States,  a  Democratic  member  of  the  Committee 
on  Foreign  Relations  of  this  body,  when  the  criticisms  are  made  that 
when  the  tishing  rights  have  been  surrendered  without  co  nlting  the 
men  who  knew  anything  about  them,  gets  up  and  asks  me  ^>  hat  is  my 
opinion  of  Pre.sident  Angell. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  I  think,  if  the  Senator  will  permit  me,  that  he  has 
made  a  very  uncharitable  and  irrational  charge  upon  this  commission, 

Mr.  HOAR.     I  am  making  uo  charge  upon  the  commission. 

Mr.  l^AYNE.  Excuse  me  until  I  linisli  my  statement.  1  think  it 
is  very  unoliaritable  to  make  the  remark  that  the  commission  knew 
nothing  about  the  question;  that  President  Angell  knew  nothing  about 
the  matter.  The  idea  that  a  man  born  in  New  England,  educated  in 
New  England,  brought  up  in  New  T^ngland,  knows  nothing  about  this 
matter  is  very  singular. 

Mr.  HOAR.  Wliat  I  stateil  was  that  I  was  not  aware  that  President 
Angell  ever  saw  a  mackerel  until  it  came  from  the  gridiron. 

Mr.  PAYNE.  I  know  Mr.  Angell  to  he  pre  eminent  in  science, 
one  of  the  most  distinguishetl  men  in  the  United  States,  the  head  of 
the  Univervsity  of  the  Stute  of  Michigan. 

Mr.  HOAR.  President  Angell  is  all  that  and  a  greatdeal  more,  but 
I  have  never  heard  that  either  of  the  three  American  commitwioners, 
the  .Secretary  of  State,  the  honored  head  of  the  University  of  Michigan, 
or  the  honored  lender  of  the  Portland  oar  had  had  occa.-<ion  to  iulbrm 
uimself  thoroughly  in  regard  to  the  practical  rights  and  interests  of 
the  vocation  of  the  American  fishermen. 

Mr.  PAYNH     One  moment  more. 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  (rmpore.     Does  the  Senator  yield  further? 

Mr.  HOAR.     I  am  willing  to  yield  for  a  correction  of  a  statement. 

Mr.  PAYNE.     I  wish  to  correct  the  statement  the  Senator  made, 

that  neither  one  of  the  gentlemen  a.s8ociated  with  the  Secretary  of 

Stat«  had  any  knowledge  of  the  fisheries  (|nestion.      He  overlooked  the 

very  prominent  fact  that  Mr.  Putnam,  who  is  certainly  one  of  the  most 

HOAB — ' 2 


-J.I».^-tJ.l. 


18 


«(iiinont  lawyers  in  New  England,  had  b*»en  the  attorney  in  the  Do- 
miniou  coiirti  of  these  very  tishermen  in  defending  their  rights;  and 
to  say  that  he  knew  notliing  about  the  mackerel  question  is  unfair. 

Mr.  HOAR.  Mr.  Pu'uain,  it  is  true,  had  been  employed  to  defend 
som'i  crin)inal  cases  in  the  Dominion  courts.  He  was  a  very  compe- 
tent person.  I  wonder  what  would  have  been  thought  of  Mr.  Putnam 
when  he  wius  acting  as  attorney  in  defending  those  cases  if  he  had  un-v 
dertaken  to  try  them  without  coasulting  his  clients,  to  get  some  of  his 
clients'  knowledge  of  the  law  and  the  facts. 

Mr.  PAYNE.     1  take  it  that  somebody  in  New  England 

Mr.  HOAR.  I  do  not  yield  any  further.  I  take  it  that  when  these 
three  men  were  undertaking  to  deal  with  the  trained  diplomatists  of 
Great  Britain  and  with  Sir  Charles  Tupper,  the  old  minister  of  fish- 
eries in  the  Dominion,  who  had  madethis  subject  the  study  of  his  life- 
time, it  was  a  very  indiscreet  thing  indeed,  however  eminent  in  science 
or  in  law  or  in  Delaware  politics  they  were,  not  to  avail  themselves  of 
the  advice,  of  the  assistance,  and  the  sugge.stions  of  the  representatives 
of  the  fishinfi  interests  in  this  body  and  in  the  other  House. 

Mr.  GliAY.  I  do  not  want  to  interrupt  the  Senator  if  he  objects  to 
an  interruption;  but  will  the  Senator  from  Massachusetta  undertake  to 
say  that  the  negotiators  on  the  American  side  of  this  treaty,  Mr.  Put- 
nam and  Mr.  Angell,  to  say  nothing  of  the  Secretary  of  State,  werein- 
iierior  in  equipment  for  the  duties  that  were  imposed  upon  them  to  Mr. 
Chamberlain  or  Sir  Lionel  Suckville  West;  that  there  was  anything  in 
the  occupations,  history,  or  previous  studies  of  those  gentlemen  that 
made  them  at  all  inferior  in  equipment  for  negotiation  to  either  of  the 
gentlemen  whom  I  have  named,  one  of  them  certainly  not  a  practical 
diploniat  ist,  and  the  other  not  so  eminent  that  any  fair  American  law- 
yer should  fear  to  come  in  competition  with  him  ? 

Mr.  HOAR.  I  think  that  the  training  of  a  New  England  lawyer  in 
a  commercial  city,  and  the  training  of  a  man  as  professor  in  a  univer- 
sity in  the  West,  and  the  <  lining  of  an  able  and  honorable  United 
States  Senator  from  Ddlawa  ,  however  honorable  those  positions  and 
functions  in  life  may  be,  did  not  fit  them  to  cope  on  terms  of  equality, 
either  in  diplomacy  or  in  special  knowledge,  with  the  men  whom  Great 
Britain  sent  on  the  other  side,  and  I  think  that  the  result  of  that  dip- 
lomatic attempt  on  the  part  of  those  gentlemen  will  abundantly  sat- 
isfy the  Scn.ite  of  that  fact. 

Mr.  GRAY.  What  special  training  had  Mr.  Chamberlain,  or  what 
special  training  had  Sir  Lionel  Sackville  West,  which  rendered  them 
superior  to  the  American  negotiators? 

Mr.  HOAR.  I  suppose  it  uad  b>"m  the  business  of  Mr.  West  to  study 
the  question  for  the  last  ten  years. 

Mr.  GRAY.  And  what  better  selection  could  have  been  made  in 
this  country,  wlTere  we  have  no  trained  school  of  diplomatists,  than  was 
made? 

Mr.  IIOAR.  I  would  sugu'ost  that  Mr.  William  P.  Frye,  of  Maine; 
Mr.  W.  H.  Trescott;  (jeneral  WiM.r.\.M  Cogswell,  of  Salem,  Mass.; 
,  Mr.  Fitz  J.  P.abHon,  of  Gloncester,  or  Mr.  Charles  Levi  Woodbury  would 
have  saved  us  from  the  disgrace  and  humiliation  of  this  treaty. 

One  otlier  matter  I  ought  to  advert  to.  The  Committee  on  Foreign 
Ji'elations  very  properly  calls  attention  to  the  refusal  by  the  President, 
under  the  advice  of  the  Secretary  ol' State,  to  communicate  to  the  Sen- 
ate confidentially  the  course  of  the  negotiations  and  discussions,  and 
the  various  propositions  and  arguments  arising  in  the  negotiation.  The 
committee  dcema  the  refusal  contrary  to  the  constitutiouAl  relation  be- 


19 


tween  the  President  and  tlie  Senate,  and  the  reverse  of  the  continuoua 
practice  n  smh  matters  tVoiii  the  beginning  of  tlie  Government  until 
this  time.     The  Secretary  of  State  alleges  as  the  reason  for  the  rcftisal — 

That  tlie  f.rKotiiilion  is  iiitrusteil  to  tlie  discrelion  of  tlie  Kxecutive,  Hiwi  that  it 
coulij  not  liopeftilly  bu  entered  un  witliout  tlie  guariinty  of  mutual  cuiitidence 
between  t)ie  agent.s. 

He  implies  that  his  refusal  is  due  to  some  confidential  obligation  to 

the  British  side  of  the  conference.     But  Sir  Charles  Tupper,  on  the 

other  h;MKl,  in  liis  speech  of  May  10,  expresses  his — 

great  surprise  that  the  protoiols  as  publishod  did  not  give  all  the  proposals 
wade,  and  the  counter-proposals  and  the  replies  on  both  sides. 

So  it  is  clear,  Mr.  President,  that  this  concealment  from  the  Senate 
of  what  took  place  thore  as  preliminary  to  the  treaty  is  solely  of  Mr. 
Bayard's  own  seeking,  and  is  contrary  to  the  expectation  and  to  the 
desiie  of  the  I  Jritishcommissioners.  The  suggestion  of  thecourtdential 
character  ot  this  (iommuuicatiou,  and  that  it  is  essenti.il  in  order  that 
such  proceedings  might  be  hopefully  entered  upon,  tiiids  no  support 
in  the  understanding  of  the  other  side.  Something  t(x)k  place  there 
which  Sir  Charles  Tupper  desired  and  expected  to  make  known  to 
Canada,  and  which  the  Administration  desires  and  expected  to  conceal, 
not  only  from  the  .A^ncrican  people,  but  from  the  Sen  ite,  to  whom  the 
Constitution  commits  the  duty  of  advising  in  regard  to  the  transaction. 

Now,  Mr.  President,  what  Wiis  the  present  o(!(ii.sion  for  a  revision  of 
our  international  relations  with  Caiiaiia?  We  had,  it  is  true,  long- 
standing differences,  growingout  of  conflicting  claims  under  the  treaty 
of  1818  and  in  regard  to  our  rights  before  that  treaty.  But  tliese  claims 
were  not  the  subject  of  the  present  disturbance.  The  wrongs  with 
which  this  treaty  does  not  deal  are  the  wrongs  which  had  so  excited 
public  indignation.  The  recent  and  present  subject  of  American  com- 
plaint is  the  attempt  on  the  part  of  Canada  to  compel  a  change  ip  our 
customs  laws,  a  purely  domestic  concern,  for  her  benefit,  by  vexatious 
and  inhospitable  treatment  of  our  ve^isels,  in  violation  of  the  plain  laws 
of  international  courtesy.  To  that  complaint  it  was  the  duty  of  the 
Administration  to  have  addressed  itself.  The  grievances  recently  suf- 
fered by  the  American  vessels  whose  names  have  been  furnished  us  by 
the  President  in  his  communications  have,  I  believe,  in  no  instance 
grown  ont  of  their  having  fished  in  the  territory  disputed  under  the 
treaty  of  1818.  The'e  have  been  but  two  American  vessels  .seized  for 
fishing  outside  the  3 -mile  line  since  the  treaty  of  1818.  One  was  the 
Washington  in  1843,  seized  in  the  Bay  of  Fundy,  and  decided  by  the 
umpire  to  whom  the  two  nations  sulnnitled  the  case  to  be  within  our 
rights  under  that  treaty.  The  other  was  the  case  of  the  xVrgus.  The 
Administration  have  pawed  by  the  American  grievance,  have  got 
neither  indemnity  for  the  past  nor  security  for  time  to  come,  have  done 
all  thatwus  in  their  power  to  do  to  put  future  redress  oiit  of  our  reach. 
They  have  entered  upon  a  negotiation  in  regard  to  mattoi-s  not  in- 
Btantly  pressing,  and  in  dealing  with  those  have  yielded  nearly  all  that 
was  of  value  in  the  American  claim,  what  clearly  belonged  to  us,  and 
what  we  had  always  enjoyed  aa  matter  of  right,  without  any  adequate 
or  important  equivalent. 

The  law  of  March  3,  1887,  passed  with  but  one  dissenting  voice  in 
each  House,  gives  the  President  authority  t<)  prohibit  the  entrance  to 
our  ports  of  the  vessels  of  any  foreign  power  or  any  port,  district,  or 
dependency  thereof,  or  any  class  of  such  vessels,  when  he  shall  be  sat- 
isfied that  our  vessels  are  unjustly  vexed  or  harassed  there.  But  how 
must  he  be  hampered  and  restrained  in  the  exercise  of  that  discretion 


20 


by  his  own  public  utterances,  and  those  of  the  Secretary  of  State  mad* 
since  this  tn-uty  wu8  proposed,  aud  by  the  couce^iona  implied  in  the^ 
iustrumeiit  itself. 

We  claim  that  the  refusal  to  fishius?  voasels  of  the  ordinary  rights  of 
hospitality  and  commercial  privilesea  is  a  violation  of  the  law  aud 
usages  of  nations  iw  established  in  modern  limes,  justifying,  not  war, 
but  a  like  rel'nsal  in  our  discretion  to  any  vessel  from  the  olVending 
port  or  district.  Now,  here  we  have  a  treaty  stipulating  for  certain 
restricted  and  conditional  privileges  to  our  fishing  vessels,  therefore 
clearly  recognizing  tfie  propriety  of  withholding  them  in  all  other 
Cijaes.  How  can  the  President  and  Secretary  i  ver  hereafter  put  in  force 
the  provisions  of  the  statute  of  March  3,  1887  in  retaliation  for  conduct 
whose  propriety  they  have  themselves  so  admitted?  The  rights  of 
common  humanity  to  our  vessels  in  distress  have  been  withheld  in 
many  flagrant  instances.  This  is  a  grievance  for  which  the  cessation 
of  the  intercourse  in  respect  to  which  the  complaint  arises  furnishes 
abundant  remedy.  The  treaty  provides  for  removal  of  this  grievance 
to  a  limited  extent  and  on  strict  conditions.  '  The  President  can 
hardly  hereafter  make  the  continuance  of  these  grievances  a  ground 
of  complaint  in  the  cases  he  has  not  provided  for. 

But  the  important  question  is  the  substance  of  the  treaty  itself.  If 
I  am  right — and  if  I  am  wrong  the  ablest  statesmen  of  America  in 
every  generation  have  been  wrong — if  lam  right  this  is  no  mereiiues- 
tion  of  the  investment  of  a  few  hundred  thousand  dollars  and  the  em- 
ployment of  a  few  thousivnd  men;  these  may  be  transferred  to  equal 
profit  elsewhere.  It  is  a  (juestiou  of  the  strength  of  the  right  arm  of 
this  nation.  It  is  a  question  of  its  power  to  ward  olF  or  to  return  a 
blow  in  any  future  war.  It  is  a  question  of  that  naval  strength  with- 
out which  our  commerce  aud  our  coast  cities  are  alike  to  be  at  the 
mercy  ot  any  enemy  who  may  attack  them.  It  enters  largely  into  the 
qtrestion  whether  as  a  maritime  power  We  are  to  be  e<)ual,  not  to  Great 
Britain,  but  even  to  Canada.  It  is  a  question,  notol  the  price  of  tlsh, 
but  of  the  limits  and  the  efficiency  of  the  Anion  an  naval  school. 

The  pending  negotiation  has  to  do  with  a  goo^  many  separate  ques- 
tions.    They  relate  to  four  principal  suli;ject*iof  uitft-rence: 

The  extent  of  territory  in  which  the  United  .States  possess  rights  ot 
fishery,  iiicludina  shore  rights; 

The  treatment  due  to  our  vessels  on  the  coasts  and  in  the  ports  of  the 
British  North  American  dependencies; 

The  claim  for  indemnity  for  past  grievances  in  the  treatment  of  our 
fishermen; 

The  ai)andonmentof  our  established  protective  jolicy  for  the  benefit 
of  J^ritish  fishermeu. 

In  regaid  to  e.ach  of  these,  the  Secretary  of  State  set-ms  to  have  dealt 
with  the  subject,  I  will  not  say  in  total  ignorance,  but  in  total  disre- 
gard of  the  American  position  and  the  Amcric;in  rights.  He  says,  in 
his  letter  to  gentlemen  in  Boston,  that  "  the  sole  and  difficult  question 
to  which  the  treaty  relates  is  that  of  the  fi'<hcry  rights  of  one  nation  in 
the  jurisdictional  waters  of  another."  This  is  the  statement  of  the 
American  Ciuse  from  the  P>ritish  point  of  view.  Mr.  Bayard's  letter 
and  the  utterances  of  a  lew  other  supporters  of  the  treaty  are  the  first 
and  only  stiitemenls  of  this  character  ever  heard  on  this  side  of  the  At- 
lantic south  of  the  Canadian  border  since  the  continent  was  settled. 
We  have  always  held,  and  there  is  abundant  British  authority  to  sup- 
port our  claim,  that  we  were  joint  owners  of  a  great  o<;eau  fishery  whiclv 
our  fathei-s  had  helped  to  conquer  aud  to  acquire,  and  which  had  beeo. 


21 


panted  to  Massachusetts  )»y  her  charter,  a  property  where  the  fishery 
was  the  i>rincipal  ami  the  siiore  rijjtht  the  accessory,  aud  that  at  the 
Itevolulion  we  made  a  partition  of  that  property;  that  we  did  not  gain 
or  ac(iuire  that  ri«ht  by  the  treaty  of  1783,  but  simply  retained  it  and 
had  il  acknowiedj^ed,  and  tliat  it  rests  to  day  on  the  same  loundatiou 
as  our  title  to  our  independence  or  our  title  to  the  soil  of  the  .State  of 
Maine  The  jurisdiction  of  shore  or  adjacent  waters  had  nothing  to 
do  with  it.  If  I  were  to  undertake  to  support  this  view  by  niarshal- 
inj:  all  the  American  authorities,  I  must  speak  a  week;  I  must  cite 
every  American  historian,  every  American  writer  on  public  law,  every 
American  diplomatist  who  has  dealt  with  the  subject  from  John  Ad- 
ams down  to  Mr,  Wharton,  the  present  accomplished  law  adviser  of 
the  Department  of  State. 

The  Continental  Congress,  as  early  as  1778,  declared  the  ultimatum 
on  which  peace  should  be  made  with  Enijland — 

1.  Independence; 

2.  The  reco^^nition  of  our  claim  to  the  fisheries; 

3.  Free  navigation  of  the  Mississippi. 

They  enforced  this  by  the  further  agreement  that  every  stipulation 
respectirig  tl'.e  fisheries  must  receive  the  a.ss(nt  of  ever}'  State. 

John  Adams  has  left  it  on  record  that  when  lie  went  abroad  as  our 
representative  in  1778,  and  again  when  the  treaty  of  1783  was  nego- 
tiated, his  knowledge  of  the  fisheries  and  his  sense  of  their  importance 
were  what  iiwluced  him  to  take  the  mission.     He  calls  them — 

Tliat  greiit  source  of  wealth,  tliat  great  nursery  of  seamen,  that  great  means 
of  power. 

He  declared  that  unless  our  claims  were  fully  recognized  the  States 
would  carry  on  the  war  alone.     He  said: 

His  country  had  ordered  liiiii  to  malce  no  peace  without  dear  acknowledg- 
ment of  the  ritflit  to  the  fishery,  and  by  that  declaration  he  would  stand. 

His  letters  to  William  Cranch,  to  .lames  Llovil,  to  Richard  Rush, 

t«  William  Tudor,  aud  William  Thomas  set  forth  the  whole  ground* 

of  our  rights  as  an  original  part  of  our  national  empire.     This  right 

was  completely  acknowledged   by  the  highest  English   authorities. 

When  the  Briti.xh  Parliament  pixssed  the  actof  Marcli,  1775 — 

To  restrain  the  trade  and  commerce  of  the  provinces  of  MassRehusettB  Bay 
and  New  Hampsliire  and  tiie  colonies  of  C^onnecticiit  and  lihude  Island  and 
Providence  Plantations;  and  to  proliiiiit  such  colonies  from  carrying  on  any 
fishery  on  the  banksof  Newfoundland,  aud  other  places  therein  mentioned— 

«ixteen  peers,  among  them  I^ord  Camden  and  Lord  Rockingham,  pro- 
tested.    Among  their  reasons  they  said: 

Because  the  people  of  New  ICngland.  bes'des  tlio  natural  claim  of  mankind  to 
the  gifts  of  Priividenop  on  their  coast,  are  xpecially  entitled  to  tlie  fishery  by 
their  charters,  which  have  never  been  declared  forfeited. 

In  the  debate  on  t'le  articles  of  peace  in  the  House  of  Lords,  Lord 
Loughbornugh,  the  ablest  lawyer  of  his  party,  said: 

The  fishery  on  the  sliores  retained  by  Britain  is  in  the  next  article  not  ceded, 
but  recognized  as  a  right  inherent  in  tlie  Americans,  \vhich  though  no  longer 
Britisli  subjects,  they  ar6  to  continue  to  enjoy  unmolested.  , 

This  was  denied  nowhere  in  the  debate. 

John  Adams  took  greater  satisfaction  in  his  achievement  securing 
our  fisheries  in  the  treaty  of  1783  than  in  any  other  of  the  great  actsof 
his  life.  After  the  treaty  of  1783  he  had  a  seal  struck  with  the  figures 
of  the  pine  tree,  the  deer,  and  the  fish,  emblems  of  the  territory  and 
the  fisheries  secured  in  1783.  He  had  it  engraved  anew  in  1815  with 
the  motto,  **  I^aeemur,  venemur,  ut  oiim."      I  have  here  an  impression 


i 


23 


tiiken  from  the  origiuul  seal  of  1815.     Tbid  letter  from  John  Qiiiiic; 
Adams  tells  its  story: 

QciN'CY,  September  3,  ixM. 

My  Dkar  Son:  On  ihis  day,  llic  anniversary  of  the  (letinitlve  treaty  of  peMca 
of  17(<.'{,  whereby  the  iiKlrpt'iKlcii.'e  of  the  United  States  of  America  was  n-fos;- 
iiizcd.anil  the  anniversary  of  your  own  niarriaife,  I  Kive  yon  aseal.lhe  iniprcr^ 
sion  npon  wliich  was  a  device  of  my  fatlier.  to  ooninieinc>rate  the  sncceMHlnl  as- 
sertion of  two  nTcat  interest*  hi  the  ncKoliation  for  th(!  peace,  the  liberty  ol  the 
ttsherics,  and  the  boundary  seourlnjt  tlio  acunisitionof  tlie  western  hinds.  I'he 
deer,  the  pine  tree,  and  tlie  (Ish  are  the  emblems  representinjf  those  interests. 

The  seal  which  my  father  had  eiiKravetl  in  17N3  was  withont  the  motto.  Ilo 
KHVc  it  in  his  lifetime  to  your  deceased  brother  John,  to  whose  family  it  be- 
longs. Tliat  which  I  now  i;ive  to  you  I  tiad  engraved  by  liis  direction  at  I^ou- 
don  in  1S15,  sliortly  after  the  conclusion  of  tlie  treaty  of  peace  at  (ilient,  on  the 
24th  of  December,  IHl-l,  at  the  iieBotitition  of  which  the  same  interests,  the  flsll- 
eries,  antl  the  boundary  had  been  deeply  involved.  Tlie  motto,  Piscemur,  ven- 
erttur,  at  olim,  is  from  Horace. 

I  request  yuu,  should  the  blessing  of  ICeaven  preserve  tlie  life  of  your  son 
Charles  Kranc's,  and  miikc  liini  worthy  of  your  approbation,  to  Kive  it  at  your 
own  time  to  him  as  a  token  of  remembrance  of  my  father,  who  guve  it  to  me, 
And  of  yours. 

JOHN  QUINCY  ADAiMS. 

My  son.  CiiARLRa  Pkancis  Adamji. 

The  negotiation."?  of  1815  and  1818  were  under  the  control  of  as 
daantles.s  and  uncompromising  a  spirit,  and  one  (juite  as  alive  to  the 
value  of  tho  (i.sheries  and  the  di.shoiior  of  abaudoniug  them  as  that  of 
John  Adams  himself.  II  John  Quiuey  Adams,  the  senior  envoy  at 
Ghent,  and  the  Secretary  of  State  in  1818,  had  consented  to  a  treaty 
bearing  the  construction  which  is  now  claimed  he  never  could  have 
gone  home  to  face  his  father.  When  the  war  of  181'5  ended.  Great 
Britain  .set  up  the  preposterous  claim  that  the  war  had  abrogated  all 
treaties,  and  that  with  the  treaty  of  178.3  our  riglits  in  the  li.sheriea 
were  gone.  There  was  alarm  in  New  England;  but  it  was  (juieted  by 
the  linovvledge  that  John  Quincy  Adams  was  one  of  our  representatives. 
It  was  well  said  at  that  time  that,  as 

John  Adams  saved  the  Asheries  once,  his  son  would  s  second  time. 

When  some  one  expressed  a  fear  that  the  other  commissioners  would 

not  stand  by  his  son,  the  old  man  wrote  in  1814,  that — 

Bayarl,  Itus-sell,  Clay,  or  oven  Oallatin  would  cede  the  fee-simple  of  the 
United  States  as  soon  aa  tliey  woulil  cede  tlie  tiaheries. 

When  England  made  the  claim  at  Ghent  that  the  war  had  abrogated 
the  treaty  of  178^5,  and  that  our  tisliery  rights  both  at  sea  and  on  sliore 
came  from  that  treaty  and  had  fallen  with  it,  our  coinmis-sioners  an- 
swered that  our  right  to  the  fisheries  stood  on  the  same  foundation  as 
our  right  to  our  independence  or  to  our  territory,  and  that  this  right 
was  not  affected  by  the  war,  and  that  they  were  instructed  not  to  bring 
th  .ime  into  discussion.  Mr.  .\dains,  in  his  letters  in  reply  to  .Tona- 
thuu  Rus.sell,  shows  that  this  claim  is  not  only  supported  by  Vattel, 
but  is  e-stat)!ished  by  abundant  British  authorities.  One  of  the  British 
commi.ssioners  has  left  on  record  his  opinion  that  the  failure  by  Great 
Britain  to  re.ject  this  claim  in  the  treaty  amounts  to  an  assent  to  it. 
Mr.  Adams  distinctly  declares  that  our  right  Was  not  the  creation  of 
the  treaty  of  17.s:{, 

It  was  the  possessory  use  of  the  ri>fht  at  any  time  theretofore  as  British  sub- 
Jects,  and  tlie  acknuwledxnienl  by  (Jreat  Britain  of  its  continuance  in  the  peo- 
pie  of  the  United  States  after  the  treaty  ot  sefHiratiou. 

The  letter  of  instruction  to  our  commissioners  at  Ghent  says: 

Information  has  been  received  that  it  is  probable  that  a  demand  will  be  mad« 
to  surrender  our  riijht  to  the  tlsheries.  Should  it  be  m;ide,  you  will,  of  course, 
treat  11  as  it  deserves.     If  insisted  on  your  nexc  tialiuns  will  ceuiie. 


23 


Our  commissioners  notified  those  of  Great  Britain  that  they  were  not 
authorized  to  discuss  these  rijilitM.  The  treiity  was  concluded  without 
menticmin'^  them.  Mr.  Adams  dechvred  lour  years  alter  the  couvention 
ofl8H 

Our  tluctrine  wim  Hound  In  itself,  niid  ninintainahle  on  the  tno<9t  vnlnrKed,  ha- 
maiio,  Hiiil  K*3>>eruii!i  prmciple.s  of  inttTuHtioiial  liiw.  •  •  •  ^inue  iltut  ttie 
priiifiple  uHserted  by  llio  .Viiuiricnn  pU-iiip  it«Mitiarie>i  iit  Ohcnt  has  been  still  as- 
Hcrtcd  arid  maintained  tlirod);))  llie  lon<  and  anlniMii  ne^otintion  with  Oreai 
Britain,  and  has  pa»'»i«l  the  ordeal  of  niin.ls  of  no  inferior  ability.  It  has  ter- 
ruinated  in  a  new  and  sati.ifaclory  aininRCinunlof  l lie  jjreat  intercut  connected 
with  It,  and  in  the  substantial  adniis'^ion  of  the  priiieiple  a-<><erted  by  the  .\nniri- 
can  pienipotentiurieH.  *  «  '  ThiH  principle  U  yet  important  to  threat  inter- 
ests and  to  tlie  future  welfare  of  the  country. 

He  states  in  a  terse  and  weijjhty  sentence  the  whole  controversy: 

They  considered  it  a  Fh-itish  grant;  we  considered  it  a  British  acknowledg- 
ment. 

Mr.  President,  it  is  obvious  that  if  the  war  of  1812  abrocitted  our 
fishery  ri^^hts  a  new  war  will  abrogate  the  treaty  of  1846  aud  give  na 
Vancouver's  iMlaiiil  and  fifty-four  forty. 

We  were  only  insisting  upon  a  doctrine  many  times  asserted  by  emi- 
nent British  authorities,  aud  by  the  great  continental  writers  on  the 
law  of  uatioiLs.     Vattel  says: 

AlthouKh  a  nation  may  appropriate  to  itself  a  flshery  upon  its  own  coast  and 
within  its  own  juriM<lietion,  yet  if  it  has  once  acknowfedKeil  the  common  right 
of  olher  n:ili»us  to  come  and  rtsh  there,  it  can  no  lonjier  exclude  them  from  it; 
it  has  left  tluit  flshery  in  its  primitive  freedom,  at  least  with  respect  to  those 
who  have  been  in  possession  of  it. 

He  cites  the  herrinj^  tisbery  on  the  coast  of  England  as  being  com- 
mon to  them  with  other  nations,  becua-se  they  had  not  appropriated  it 
to  them.selves  from  the  beginning. 

It  is  clear,  then,  Mr.  I'resident,  that  we  had  and  have  everything 
that  was  assigned  to  us  in  the  partition  of  178;i,  everything  that  Eng- 
land then  acknowledged  to  be  ours  that  we  did  not  renounce  in  1818. 
That  treaty  leaves  the  deep-sea  and  bank  li.sheries  untouched,  as  not 
capable  of  being  questioned.  It  then  expressly  affirms  the  right  of  the 
United  States  to  take  tish  on  the  whole  western  coast  of  Newfoundland 
and  on  the  southern  coast  a.s  far  eastward  as  the  Hameau  Islands;  also 
on  the  coast  of  I..abrador  from  Mount  Joli  nortli ward  indefinitely;  also 
on  the  Magdalen  Islands;  also  to  dry  and  cure  fish  on  the  unsettled 
portions  of  said  coast.  We  had  before  no  right  to  dry  and  cure  fish  in 
Newfoundland;  but  we  ha<l  the  right  to  take  fi.sh  on  the  whole  shores 
of  the  British  pos-sessions  in  North  America.  We  renounced  in  1818 
the  right  to  take  fish  on  the  coast  of  Nova  Scotia  and  on  the  eastern 
shore  of  Newfoundland  and  the  .shore  at  the  mauth  of  the  St.  Lawrence 
westward  from  Mount  Joli,  and  gained  the  shore  rights  on  a  consider- 
able strip  of  Newfoundland.  There  is,  as  far  as  I  know,  no  claim  any- 
where that  the  right  to  dry  fish  on  these  shores  or  to  take  them  within 
3  marine  miles,  renounced  in  181 H,  was  of  any  considerable  importance. 
But  the  treaty  of  1818  is  censured  for  t  ao  reasons- 
First,  because  in  the  clause  in  which  the  United  States  "renounce 
forever  any  liberty  heretofore  enjoyed  or  claimed  by  the  inhabitants 
thereof  to  take,  dry,  or  cure  fi.sh  on  or  within  '.i  marine  miles  of  any  of 
the  coasts,  bays,  creeks,  or  harbors  of  his  Britannic-  Majesty's  domin- 
ions in  America,  not  included  within  the  above-mentioned  limits," 
the  use  of  the  words  "bays"  has  left  it  open  for  England  to  claim, 
that  we  are  excluded  from  all  territory  within  3  miles  .from  any  body 
of  water  included  between  headlands,  whatever  may  be  its  size. 


'ill 


% 


11 

I 


I 


24 


Second,  that  in  enuineratiiig  (ortairi  privileges  to  be  thenceforth  en- 
joyed by  Dur  lisherinen,  it  impliedly  renouiioed  all  others. 

A  small  part  of  this  critioi«tn  is  well  tounded.  The  use  r,f  the  gen- 
eral term  "hays,"  taken  lit»!ially  and  without  ^c^a^d  to  the  fiubject- 
niatterof  the  negotiation,  would  have  fxclnded  us  from  xulwtantially 
all  the  shore  fisheries,  even  those  ronceded  to  us  by  the  other  express 
language  of  the  treaty.  It  would  sliutjusout  from  the  whole  Gulf  of  St. 
Lawrence  itself.  That  is  certainly  u  bay.  It  is  not  h  "bay  "  imluded 
within  the  above-mentioned  limits  but  the  above  mentioned  limits, 
nearly  all  of  them,  are  included  within  it.  If  you  except  Labrador, 
north  of  the  St  raits  of  Belle  I.sle,  there  is  not  a  leagueof  the  territory  within 
which  our  shore  rights  are  reserved  which  is  not  within  the  Gulf  of  Sti. 
Ijawreuce,  which  all.  I  helieve,  was  formerly  included  in  the  name 
Baie  dea  Chaleurs.  This  is  all  Mr.  Webster  and  Mr.  Everett  have  con- 
ceded. All  their  criticism  on  the  treaty  of  1818  wiw  nttered  before 
the  award  of  18.^3.  The  language  of  the  treaty  gave  Great  Britain  a 
pretext  for  raising  a  difficulty.  Hut,  as  I  shall  presently  show,  it  is  a 
pretext  which  she  never  herself  has  seriously  undertaken  to  enforce, 
and  which,  but  <br  the  defenders  of  this  treaty,  never  would  have  had 
A  place  of  dignity  in  this  discussion. 

The  other  criticism  upon  the  treaty  of  1818  is  absolutely  without 
force.  Senators  talk  as  if  the  negotiators  of  the  treaty  of  1818  had,  in 
some  way,  renounced  or  abandoned  or  failed  to  obtain  a  provision  for 
suitable  hospitalities  for  our  fishermen  in  Canadian  porta,  and  this  has 
made  all  the  trouble.  This  is  another  mistake."  Prior  to  IHIH  no 
American  vessel,  whether  employed  in  fishing  or  commerce,  had  the 
right  to  enter  a  British-American  port  for  any  purpose  whatever.  They 
could  fish  on  the  fishing-grounds  where  the  inhabitants  of  both  coun- 
tries used  to  fisU.  They  could  go  on  the  shore  to  dry  fish.  But  they 
could  not  enter  a  harbor,  unless  it  were  a  place  used  for  fishing.  They 
could  buy  nothing  or  sell  nothing.  They  could  not  refit  or  ship  a 
crew  or  go  into  the  interior  or  go  home  by  laud.  Now  everything  stip- 
ulated in  their  behalf  in  the  treaty  of  1818  was  a  clear  gain.  It  fa- 
vored the  fisherman  so  far  above  all  ves-sels  whatever.  It  enabled  him 
to  get  his  bearings  and  shelter  and  water  and  fuel.  The  policy  of 
England,  which  to  all  other  commerce  was  aa  f"X)cious  as  that  of  the 
cannibal  of  the  south  seas,  relaxed  toward  the  fishermen  almost  to  the 
dim  and  faint  courtesy  of  her  savage  Highlander, 

"Stranger,  what  dnst  thou  require?" 
"  Kent,  and  a  guide,  and  food,  and  tire." 

The  treaty  of  1818  was  a  Democratic  measure.  The  commissioners 
were  Albert  Gallatin,  Jefferson's  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  and  Rich- 
ard Rush,  the  friend,  disciple,  and  eulogist  of  Calhoun.  The  Presi- 
dent was  Jame.s  Monroe.  The  Secretary  was  John  Quincy  Adams,  who 
had  been  with  Gallatin  at  Ghent,  lie  was  little  likely  to  surrender  any 
right  of  a  New  England  fisherman.  If  you  had  dissected  his  brave  and 
stout  heart  you  would  have  found  fisheries  written  on  it. 

Joha  Quincy  Adams  sounded  a  clarion  of  triumph  when  the  treaty 
of  1818  was  concluded.  The  great  object  of  his  father's  life,  save  inde- 
pendence, the  object  without  which  his  lather  believed  that  independ- 
ence itself  could  not  be  maintained — the  great  object  of  his  own  public 
service,  until  those  later  days  when  he  .stood  almost  alone  for  the  right 
of  petition  against  ahostilellouseof  Represcntjitives,  had  been  .secured. 

The  British  pretension  that  the  war  had  destroyed  our  fishing  righta 
had  been  abandoned.  Important  privileiies  had  been  gained  for  the 
fishermen  which  were  allowed  to  no  other  persons  whatever.     Shore 


25 


rights  on  jtart  of  the  t'ontinent  hiid  been  aKindoned,  l>nt  others  on  the 
iHland  of  NewfouiKlluiKi  had  been  secured  iu  their  atead. 
We  hiive  gtiiiicU  by  th«j  convention  of  1818 — 

he  Says — 

an  atljiiBtiueni  of  the  contest  preHervinn  oi.r  whole  principle.  The  conven- 
tion re-*trii'tM  tlie  libcrlifH  in  Houie  siuiill  ilcKree,  but  it  enJHrKUH  tlieni  propubly 
in  a  ilexr>"e  not  lens  u-<clul.  It  ha8«ceiiro»l  tiie  whole  couHt  lisliery  of  every  piirt 
of  tbc  lirttixli  doininionH,  except  within  3  nmrino  miles  of  the  sboron,  with  the 
HlH^rty  of  u-'inijiill  the  liurliorM  for  Hhclter,  fur  re|>aii'in);datnnKC!),  and  forobUtin- 
in«  wood  a-id  wiiter.  It  bus  secured  tb«  whole  participation  in  the  Labrador 
HHherieH;  tlin  most  important  ixirt  of  the  whole,  and  of  which  it  was  at  Ghent 
peciiliaiiy  the  intention  of  the  liriliah  (iovernment  at  all  event'*  to  deprive  ttB. 
*  •  •  The  convention  has  uIko  secure"!  tons llie  riKhtofdi yiiiKarul  eurin>{  the 
flsh  on  a  purl  of  the  isbuxl  of  Newfoundland,  winch  bad  not  been  enjoyed  un- 
der the  treaty  of  1783;  it  haa  narrowed  down  the  preten«ion>(  of  exehmive  terri- 
torial JuriHdiction  with  referenee  to  those  fl^thericH  to  3  marinii  miles  from  thi; 
«horc(t.  Upon  the  wlu)ll^  I  consider  tliin  interest  oh  secured  by  the  convention 
of  1818  in  n  manner  as  advantaiceousnsit  had  been  by  the  treaty  of  1783.— ^dumc 
(o  Ktissell,  page  'Jll. 

You  see,  therefore,  Mr.  President,  that  the  second  criticism  of  the 
treaty  of  181H  wholly  di>>iippear8.  IMslienuen  who  brave  the  p«  rils  ot 
the  .se.'is  to  8upi)ly  lood  tor  mankind  are  the  favorites  of  public  law- 
everywhere.  It  is  a  Htrant^e  arnumeut  that  because  in  1818  the  diplo- 
macy of  America  gained  for  her  lishernieu  an  advantage  by  which  they 
were  excepted  from  Great  Hritaib's  tyrannons  and  barbarous  p(dicy  of 
non-intercourse  with  her  colonies,  they  should  have  no  part  in  the  hu- 
mHue  and  liberal  policies  of  later  times. 

The  first  criticism  on  the  treaty  of  1818,  if  you  deal  only  with  the 
words  and  phra-nes  of  asingle  clause,  has  a  little  more  foundation.  But 
it  disappears  when  you  look  at  the  whole  instrument.  The  purjiose  of 
the  clause  wa.s  to  move  back  the  line  of  the  fisheries  3  milen.  When 
they  spoke  of  drying,  and  curing  fish  "in  the  bays,  creeks,  or  harbors  " 
they  were  using  dilfering  phrases  to  describe  the  little  inlets  of  the 
shore.  The  Gulf  of  St.  Lawrence,  then  all  included  in  common  par- 
lance in  the  name  "The  Bay  of  Chaleurs,"  was  not  iu^.adcd  iu  the 
limits  where  the  privilege  of  drying  fish  was  admitted,  but  itself  in- 
cluded within  its  own  limits  all  those  parts  of  the  coast  exceptiug  only 
that  part  of  Labrador  north  of  the  Straits  of  Belle Jgle.  The  treaty  ex- 
pressly admits  us  to  the  Magdalen  Islands,  to  iflSleoast  of  Labrador 
east  of  Mount  Joli,  and  to  the  south  and  west  coast  of  Newfoundland. 
The  British  pretension  would  involve  the  absurdity  that  we  may,  under 
the  treaty,  take  and  dry  fish  on  those  coasts,  but  can  not  do  it  in  the 
waters  which  surround  them. 

Further,  the  treaty  speaks  of  the  unsettled  bays,  harbors,  and  creeks, 
showing  that  it  was  a  description  of  a  shore  line  that  it  was  making. 

Further,  it  reserves  the  right  to  enter  the  bays,  harbors,  etc.,  where 
we  are  excluded  (mm  fishing,  for  purposes  of  shelter.  How  absurd  to 
suppose  that  they  were  thinking  of  the  Hay  of  Fundy,  of  the  Hay  of 
Chaleurs,  of  the  Gulf  of  St.  Lawrence,  when  they  spoke  of  an  entry  for 
the  purpose  of  shelter.  A  ship  outside  of  one  of  these  iu  a  storm 
would  of  course  keep  the  open  sea. 

But  the  historic  evidence  Ls  equally  decisive.  Mr.  Rusl)  has  left  on 
record  his  testimony  that  this  clause  of  renunciation  was  drawn  by 
him  and  inserted  at  the  retjuest  of  the  American  commissioners,  in 
order  that  the  whole  transaction  might  appear  as  an  a.'<sertion  of  the 
original  American  rights  as  acknowledged  in  1783,  which  could  only 
be  lost  or  limited  by  express  release.  The  British  plenipotentiaries 
did  not  desire  it.  Mr.  Rush  declares  that  neither  he  nor  Mr.  Gallatin 
would  have  signed  the  treaty  if  it  excluded  us  from  any  waters  but 


'ii! 


mmr 


26 


those  within  3  miles  of  the  coast.  Mr.  Adams  had  had  prepared 
most  c«relully  a  statement  of  our  lisheries  for  the  use  of  the  negotiators 
of  1815  from  competent  merchants  engaged  in  the  business.  He  also 
had  a  letter  fronr  Jaoies  Lloyd,  then  Senator  from  Massacrhusetts,  and 
one  of  the  most  accomplished  statesmen  of  that  day.  Mr.  Lloyd's  let- 
ter is  a  most  admirable  and  valuable  summary  of  the  history  rnd  con- 
dition of  the  fishing  interests  of  Ma.s'.ichusetts,  which  then  included 
Maine.  Whatever  may  be  the  ca.sfe  now,  these  bays  were  then,  as  they 
may  be  again,  the  most  valuable  part  of  our  lishing  grounds.  Mr. 
Lloyd  says: 

The  shores,  the  o  eeks,  the  inlets  of  the  Bay  of  Piin<ly,  the  Bay  of  Chiileiir* 
and  the  On  If  of  St.  I^awrence,  the  Straits  of  Belle  Isle,  imd  the  coa^t  of  Labra- 
dor appear  to  have  bi-en  desiifi  ed  by  the  God  of  iiiitiire  as  the  great  ovarium  of 
fish — the  iiiexhavistilile  repository  of  this  ^»peeies  of  fooil,  not  only  for  the  sup- 
ply of  the  Amerioau  biit  of  the  Kuiopean  continent.  At  the  proper  season,  to 
catch  them  i;i  en<ll«'ss  abundance,  little  more  of  effort  is  needed  than  to  bait  the 
hook  and  pull  the  line,  and  occasionally  even  this  is  not  necessary.  In  clear 
weatlur,  near  the  shores,  myriads  are  visible,  and  the  strand  isat  times  almost 
literally  paved  with  them. 

He  farther  says — 

That  on  a  Sunday  the  New  England  ilshermen  swarmed  like  flies  upon  the 
abore. 

He  says — 

The  provincials,  in  1807orl8()8,  stationed  a  watchman  nearthe  Straits  of  Cansu 
to  count  the  nuniln-r  of  American  vessels  which  passed  those  straitson  this  em- 
ployment, who  returned  '.'.3S  as  the  number  actually  ascertained  by  him  to  have 
passed,  and  doubtjess  many  others,  during  the  night,  or  in  a  storm,  or  thick 
weather,  escaped  his  observation. 

For  twenty-live  years,  as  Mr.  Rush'  declares — and  he  was  jninister 

to  England  for  seven — ius  Mr.  Marcy,  the  Secretary  of  State,  declares, 

and  as  Mr.  Stevenson,  our  minister  to  England,  declared  in  a  letter 

to  the  English  secietiiry  for  (bri'ign  atlairs,  without  denial,  no  serious 

claim  was  made  that  we  had  no  right  in  the  great  bays  more  than  ft 

miles  wide.     We  have  exercised  that  right  from  that  day  to  this.     In 

1843,  at  the  instigation  of  the  colonial  authorities.  Great  Britain  seized 

two  of  our  lishing  vessels,  one,  the  Washington,  for  fishing  in  the  Bay 

of  Eundy,  the  other,  the  Argus,  for  fishing  on  St.  Anue's  Bank,  on  the 

northern  coast  of  Cape  Breton.     Both  vessels  were  in  a  large  bay  more 

than  ()  miles  wide ;  both  were  more  than  3  miles  from  the  shore, 

and  bdth  wcrein  waters  whose  shores  on  both  sides  were  in  British 

jurisdiction.    It  is  true,  one  of  the  outer  headlands  ot  the  Bayof  Fundy 

is  in  Maine,  if  you  treat  the  coast  on  the  mainland  as  forming  the  liead- 

land.  and  not  the  British  island  of  St.  Menan, which  lies  just  off  that 

eoiust.     But  the  Bay  of  Fundy  borders  on  Maine  bitt  for  a  few  miles, 

on  the  most  liberal  estimate.     The  ship  was  far  in  the  bay,  10  mile."* 

from  Annapolis, where  the  shores  wore  British  on  both  sides,  and  had 

been  for  more  than  (JO  miles  inward  from  the  open  sea.     Tliese  cases 

were  submitted  to  arbitration  in  1H^'.\.     The  British  Government  in 

the  mean  time  had  ordered  that  no  further  seizures  should  be  made  in 

waters  more  than  3  miles  from  the  shore.     The  case  w;is  referred  by 

the  two  Governments  to  arbitration.     The  umpire  decided  in  fivvor  of 

the  American  claim.     This  is  his  language: 

The  question  turns,  so  far  aa  relates  to  the  treaty  stipulations,  on  the  mean* 
Ing  given  to  the  wor<l  "  bays  "  in  the  treaty  of  17s;5.  Hy  that  treaty  the  Ameri- 
cans had  no  right  to  dry  and  cure  fl»h  on  the  shores  and  hays  of  Newfovmdland, 
but  they  li:id  that  right  on  the  shores,  coasts,  bays,  harbors,  and  creeks  of  Nova 
Beotia,  and  as  they  must  laud  to  cure  Itsh  on  the  shore.s,  bays,  and  creeks,  the.v 
were  evidently  a<lniitted  to  the  shores  of  the  bays,  etc.  Hy  the  treaty  of  1SI8 
the  same  right  Is  granted  to  oure  Ash  on  the  coasts,  bays,  etc.,  of  Newfound- 
land.    But  the  Americans  relinquished  that  right  and  the  right  to  flsli  within 


27 


3  miles  of  the  coasts,  hnys,  etc.,  of  Nova  Sootia.  Tiikiiiji  It  for  granted  thRttti» 
fraiuera  of  the  treaty  intoiided  that  the  word  "  bay  "  or  '  buys  '  should  huvelhe 
suiue  raeaninKiii  all  cates,  and  no  uieiitioii  heni'.^  made  of  in  adlaiids,  there  ap- 
pears no  doubt  tliai  the  Washington,  in  tishiiig  lu  Diiles  from  the  shore,  violated 
no  stipulation  of  the  treaty. 

It  was  ur^ed  on  behalf  of  tlie  Rritish  Ooverninent  that  liy  "coasts,"  "hays," 
etc.,  is  under»too<l  an  iniaKiniiry  line  drawn  alouH;  the  coast  from  headland  to 
headland  and  that  the  juri.sdiclion  of  Her  Jlajcsly  extends  3  marine  miles  out- 
side of  tins  line,  thus  dosing  "H  the  Iwys  on  the  coast  or  shore, and  tlml  ^icat 
bo<iy  of  water  callcit  the  Bav  of  Fumly,  tiKaiiist  Americans  anil  others,  making 
tlie  latter  a  Hrili>-li  bay.  Tnis  doctrine  of  the  headlands  is  new  and  lias  r'i* 
ceiveda  proper  limit  in  tlie  convention  betweon  I^'rimce  and  Great  Britain  of  2d 
AuRust,  IS"'.!,  in  which  "  it  is  agreed  lluit  the  ilistnnceof  3  miles,  fixed  as  thejfen- 
eral  limit  for  tha  exclusive  ri^ht  of  fishery  upon  the  coasts  of  the  two  countries, 
shall,  with  respect  to  liays  the  months  of  which  ilo  note.xceed  10  miles  in  width, 
be  measured  from  a  Htraisiht  line  drawn  from  headland  to  headland." 

The  Hay  of  I-'undy  is  from  t)5  to  "o  miles  wide,  ami  1,'iO  to  MM  miles  long;  It 
has  several  hays  on  its  coa.st;  thus  the  word  "  bay."  as  applied  to  this  Krent 
body  of  water,  has  the  same  meaning  as  that  applied  to  'he  Hay  of  Hisoay,  the 
Bay  of  HenKfil.over  which  no  nation  can  have  the  rijflit  to  assume  sovereiifnly. 
One  of  the  headlands  of  the  Hay  of  I'-unily  Is  in  the  United  Slates,  and  ships 
bound  to  I'assamar] noddy  must  sail  tlirou>{h  a  larne  space  of  it.  The  islands  of 
Ciirand  Menan  (H.'itish)  and  l,ittle  Mcnan  (American)  are  situated  nearly  on  a 
line  from  hcHdlaiid  to  hr.idland.  These  islands,  as  repiesent(Ml  in  all  peogfrik- 
phies,  are  situated  it\  thi>  Atlantic  (Jcean.  The  conclusion  is,  therefore,  in  my 
mind,  irresistible  that  the  Hay  of  Fundy  is  not  a  liritish  bay,  nor  a  bay  within 
the  meaninK  of  the  word  as  used  in  the  treaties  of  17H3  and  1HI8, 

The  owners  of  the  \V'inliins'ton,or  their  leijal  representatives  i.re,  tlierefore, 
entitled  to  compensation;  ami  are  hereby  awarded,  not  the  amount  of  their 
claim  (whicli  is  excessive),  but  the  sum  of  $3,000,  duo  on  the  15th  of  .lanuary, 
1855. 

I  am  amazed  that  so  good  a  lawyer  as  thfe  Senator  from  Delaware 
should  have  worked  bini.self  into  the  belief  that  Jii.s  doe.s  not  decide 
the  whole  questiou.  Mr.  Hatca  givtis  his  detision,  and  puts  it  exclu- 
sively on  the  ground  th;it  bayw  in  H18  mean  the  Siinie  thing  as  in  17B3, 
a  description  of  the  shore  line,  and  that  a  veasel  "  tea  mih  s  trom  shore 
violates  no  stipulation  of  the  treaty."  This  is  .stated  by  him  a.s  the 
ground  of  his  decision.  It  seitletl  not  only  the  Bay  nf  I'undy,  but 
the  wiiole  contention  between  the  two  Governments.  Then  he  goes 
on  to  speak  of  some  .special  arguments  of  Cireat  Britain;  first,  the  head- 
l.and  theory.  He  rejects  ihat  Jis  new,  and  having  a  proper  limit  in  the 
convention  lately  made  with  France.  He  adds  that  tlie  Hay  of  F'nudy 
has  one  of  its  headlands  American,  and  is  not  a  bay  within  the  mean- 
ing of  the  word  as  used  in  the  treaties  of  17H;?and  ISIH.  Now,  it  will 
be  seen  that  although  the  fact  is  mentioned  that  one  of  the  outer  ht,;ad- 
lands  of  the  Hay  of  Fundy  is  in  the  United  State.s,  the  decision  is  not 
put  on  that  ground,  but  expre.ssly  on  the  ground  that  the  liay  of  Fundy 
is  nota  bay  within  the  meaning  of  the  treaty,  that  "  bay,  creek,  harbor, 
and  coa.st, "  where  we  were  to  dry  tish  by  the  treaty  of  ITH.'l,  meant 
the  Rhor§  line,  and  th.at  the  words  had  tlie  same  meaning  in  1818.  and 
that  a  ve.ssel  10  miles  from  the  shore  is  not  within  the  treaty  at  all. 

The  same  decision  is  made  in  the  case  of  the  Argu.s.  No  o]iinion 
was  there  given,  because  the  principle  of  the  opinion  in  the  case  of  the 
Washington  covered  it. 

Mr.  GKAV.  Mr.  President,  if  the  Senator  from  Massachusetts  will 
allow  me — I  do  not  intend  to  interject  in  his  sj>eetT]  any  portion  of  the 
debate  we  had  some  time  ago  on  tlie  occasion  of  my  discu.ssion  of  this 
point — but  I  am  tjuite  willing,  as  long  as  he  has  recited  the  whole 
of  the  opinion  of  Ar.  Rates,  that  it  should  be  submitted  to  the  Sbuate 
for  its  .judgment  as  to  the  ground  upon  which  that  decision  was  made. 
Notwithstanding  the  Senator's  exegesis  and  at  the  risk  of  his  question- 
ing my  ability  as  a  lawyer,  I  yet  can  not  see  why  a  careful  reading  of 
that  opinion  will  not  justify  the  conclusion  to  which  I  came  originally 


7r^ 


28 


I    < 


I  !^  ; 


with  my  study  of  that  qaeition,  that  the  ground  upon  which  that 
opinion  is  baaed  is  that  the  Jiay  oC  Fundy,  so  called,  is  not  a  bay  at  all 
■within  the  meaninii  of  the  treaty  of  1818,  and  that  the  lan^uaue  of  the 
umpire,  Mr.  i  ates,  in  counectin;,'  that  opinion  with  th;.t  illative 
conjunction  "  tUcruiure, "  lu  y  justilies  the  conclusion  at  which  I  have 
arrived. 

But  if  the  Senator  will  pardon  me,  .vhile  I  am  on  my  feet  I  wish  to 
correct  what  is  of  course  not  an  intent'onal  mistake  in  the  stiitement 
of  the  case  of  the  Argus.  He  speaks  of  the  Argus  as  having  been  seized 
in  the  Hay  of  St.  Anne.  I  call  his  attention  to  the  evidence  in  the 
case  of  the  captain  and  crew,  that  she  w.as  seized  not  within  the  Bay 
of  St.  Anne  but  upon  St.  Anne's  Bank,  which  is  quite  another  situation 
and  far  outside  of  the  limits  of  these  waters  which  are  properly  called 
the  Bay  of  St.  Anne. 

Mr.  HOAR.  I  had  intended  to  make  that  correction  my.self,  but 
inadvertently  as  I  passed  it  I  said  "St.  Anne's  Bay. "  It  is  unimportant 
however,  as  aftectt?  the  principle.  St.  Anne's  Bank  is  within  a  line 
from  headland  to  headland,  but  it  is  outside  of  the  body  of  what  I 
sjMjke  of,  which  has  been  named  St.  Anne's  Bay;  so  1h  it  the  giving  us 
damages  for  that  was  a  rejection  simply  of  the  IJritish  headland  theory. 

We  have  it  then  settled  by  the  history  of  the  original  transaction, 
settled  by  subsequent  practice,  settled  by  a  fair  construction  of  the 
whole  language  oi'  the  treaty,  and  especially  settled  by  asolemn  adju<U- 
cation  binding  upon  both  nations,  that  the  treaty  of  1818  only  wii-a- 
drew  our  fishery  rights  H  miles  from  the  shore. 

Now,  Mr.  President,  the  difficulties  of  the  last  three  years  have  noth- 
ing to  do  with  the  question  of  the  true  limits  of  our  iLshing-ground. 
They  relate  solely  to  an  inhospitable  and  ve.xatious  abuse  of  our  ves- 
sels for  the  puri)ose  of  comi)elling  us  to  alter  our  domestic  arrangements 
as  to  duties  on  imports. 

Now,  what  an  unwise,  blundering,  timid,  un-American  diplomacy 
is  that  which,  when  one  hundred  and  filty  American  ships  cry  out  to 
their  Government  lor  redress  of  vexatious  treatanent  in  British  harbors, 
tor  denial  of  onlinary  hospitalities,  for  oppressive  use  of  legal  author- 
ity, to  turn  wholly  away  from  their  injury  and  suffer  Great  Britain  to 
discu.ss  over  again  the  inte-pretation  of  the  treaty  of  1818  as  to  fishing 
limit^s,  and  take  down  from  her  walls  the  rusty,  disused  weapons  of 
seventy  years  ago  and  brandish  them  again  in  our  faces  !  What  states- 
manship, what  patriotism  is  it  for  President  and  Secretary  and  Demo- 
cratic Senators  to  set  themselv«»  with  one  voice  to  arguing  the  British 
Ciise ! 

They  tell  us  we  ought  to  negotiate.  We  have  negotiated,  and  are 
content  with  the  results.  They  tell  us  we  ought  to  arbitrate.  We 
have  arbitrated,  and  have  two  judgments  in  our  favor.  What  treaty 
is  likely  to  be  better  for  us  than  the  treaty  of  1818.  What  arbitration 
more  likely  to  result  in  our  lavor  than  the  arbitrament  of  1853?  The 
spirit  which  caused  the  attack  on  our  fishing  vessels  at  Fortune  Bay 
the  first  time  we  attempted  to  exercise  there  our  rights  after  the  Hal- 
ifax award,  the  spirit  which  has  dealt  with  these  one  hundred  and  fif- 
teen cases  of  American  vessels  seeking  hospitality,  will  never  be  altered 
until  our  markets  are  given  up  to  Canadian  fisliermen  and  our  owa 
fishermen  are  driven  from  their  trade.  That  spirit  will  find  as  many 
op!)ortunities  ftn  its  exercise  under  the  new  treaty  as  under  the  old. 

Our  complaint  of  Mr.  Cleveland  is  not  that  he  negotiated,  but  that 
(he  refused  to  negotiate  in  regard  to  the  American  grievance.  That  he 
puts  oil' ton  more  convenient  season.     He  neirotiates  where  we  need 


29 

no  negotiation,  and  leaves  onr  condition  worse  than  he  finds  it.  Our 
demand  lor  rodress,  which  is  a  lit  subject  lur  negotiation,  the  gravity 
of  which  he  has  again  and  again  admitted,  he  wholly  ignores  or  post- 
jiones.  lie  has  done  the  things  he  ought  not  to  have  done  and  has  lei"t 
undone  tlie  tilings  he  ought  to  have  done. 

In  the  year  188(5.  according  to  the  inlbrniation  laid  before  lis  by  the 
Executive,  700  American  fishing  vessels,  and  in  1887,  l,'AHi  American 
fi  "ling  vessels  were  boarded  and  called  to  account  by  British  othcials 
in  British- American  waters  or  ports.  According  to  the  minority  of  the 
Committee  on  Foreign  Kelatious,  nearly  400  vessels  have  been  involved 
in  seizures  or  other  interferences.  More  than  150  of  these  have  com- 
plained to  our  (loveriiinent.  One  hundred  and  fifteen  of  them  have  been 
the  subject  of  diplomatic  complaiutto  Great  Britain  on  the  part  of  our 
Executive.  These  were  no  light  or  frivolous  complaints.  The  Secre- 
tary of  State  in  his  diplomatic  correspondence  with  England,  where, 
if  anywhere,  the  language  of  caution  and  moderation  is  appropriate, 
denounces  the  acts  of  Ihe  British  authorities  as  "outrageous,"  as 
"brutal,"  "inhospitable,"  "inhuman."  The  President  indorses  the 
action  of  the  Secretary  and  desires  to  have  the  evidence  taken  and  pre- 
served in  perpetnam  rri  mcmoriam,  that  demand  for  redress  may  be 
enforced  against  England.     Secretary  Manning  declares  that: 

The  Doitiiniuii  of  Canada  brutally  excludes  American  flabermen  fromCana* 
dian  ports — 

and  says  that  he — 

liopes  there  never  will  lie  such  passionate  spite  displayed  by  the  offlcersof  this 
Qovernnient  iis  lias  (luring  the  lust  snmtner  ttceii  exhibited  in  the  Douiinion  of 
Canada  toward  well-iaeHiiint;  Ameriouii  tisherinen. 

These  are  not  sentimental  grievances.  Voyages  broken  up,  vessels 
condemned  on  frivolous  pretexts,  the  common  decencies  of  hospitality 
denied,  refusal  even  to  replace  the  food  that  had  been  given  to  their 
o.wn  perishing  seamen;  a  Canadian  she- wolf  would  have  had  more  gra(<- 
itude  to  the  man  who  had  succored  her  young;  the  American  flag 
hauled  down  from  an  American  mast  h^ad  by  a  Canadian  officer.  Why, 
in  the  old  days  here  would  have  been  matter  for  a  humlred  wars. 

Mr.  Bayard  promised  the  owners  of  the  David  J.  Adams,  in  his  let- 
ter of  June  30,  1886,  that— 

Reparation  for  all  losses  unlawfully  caused  by  foreign  authority  will  be  th» 
subject  of  international  presentation  and  demand. 

And  now  we  are  quietly  told,  in  the  corner  of  a  rejwrt,  that  these 
claims  have  not  been  considered,  as  some  demands  are  made  against  us 
for  interfering  with  seal  fisheries  in  the  North  Pacific,  and  both  aul> 
Jects  are  adjourned  to  a  futtire  time.  It  is  not  too  much  to  say  that, 
while  this  Administration  shall  exist  there  will  neither  be  redress  nor 
hope  nor  expectation  of  redress  for  any  outrage  committed  by  Great 
Britain  upon  an  American  anywhere. 

For  the  insult  to  our  Hag  we  get  no  apology  from  Great  Britain.  We 
are  informed  by  the  British  minister  that  the  Canadian  (iovermnent 
regrets  it.  But  we  have  no  diplomatic  or  international  relations  with 
Canada.  She  is  to  as  but  a  bureau  or  department.  The  act  should 
either  be  di.sa vowed  and  punished  by  Great  Britain,  or  Great  Britain 
must  be  held  responsible. 

We  get  no  indemnity  for  the  past  Is  there  any  security  for  the  fu- 
ture? 

There  is  nothing  in  the  instrument  very  difficult  of  comjirehension. 
There  are  nominally  sixteen  articles  in  it.     There  are  really  but  five 


ii 


30 


Cbav  *pre  absoluto.    There  ia  one  other  that  takes  effect  if  we  repeal  oat 
duty  on  fish. 

Fir»t.  It  provides  new  limits  for  our  right  of  fishing  near  Canadian 
shores.     The  first  niue  articles  deal  with  this  one  subject. 

Second.  It  provides  in  two  articles  for  the  treatment  of  American 
fishin;;  vessels  entering  Canadian  hurbors  for  shelter,  repairs,  wood,  or 
water. 

Third  It  gives  to  "fishing  vessels  of  Canada  and  Newfoundland  on 
the  Atlantic  coast  of  the  United  States  all  the  privileges  reserved  and 
secured  by  this  treaty  to  United  States  vessels  in  the  aforesaid  waters 
of  Canada  and  Newfoundland." 

Fourth.  It  agrees  that  every  United  States  fishing  vessel  shall  con- 
spicuously exhibit  its  number  on  each  bow. 

Fifth.  It  provides  for  the  trial  and  punishment  of  the  United  States 
vessels  unlawfully  fishing  or  preparin;^  to  fish,  or  otherwise  violating 
the  laws  of  Grejit  Britain,  Canada,  or  Newfoundland  "relating  to  the 
right  of  fishery  in  such  waters,  bays,  creeks,  or  harbors." 

Sixth.  It  provides  that  when  we  admit  t}ieir  fish-oil,  whale-oil,  seal- 
oil,  and  fish  of  all  kinds  free  of  duty,  we  may  enter  their  ports,  etc.,  to 
purchase  provisions  and  supplies,  to  ship  crews,  and  transship  cargoes. 

As  to  each  of  these  matters  the  treaty  leaves  us  worse  than  it  found 
us. 

It  does  not  afibrd  redress  of  grievances. 

It  does  not  provide  against  the  recurrence  of  causes  of  complaiut  in 
future. 

It  concedes  valuable  rights  which  ought  not  to  be  surrendered. 

It  gains  no  valuable  rights  which  we  do  not  now  possess. 

It  negotiates  in  regard  to  matters  which,  under  the  special  circum- 
Btances,  should  not  be  the  subject  of  negotiation. 

It  I'ails  to  negotiate  and  bring  into  settlement  matters  which  per- 
em])lorily  demand  settlement. 

It  gfits  much  l«;s3  than  it  is  worth  for  what  it  proposes  to  give,  and 
much  less  than  Canada  had  already  shown  her  willingness  to  pay. 

It  leaves  us  in  much  worse  attitude  for  future  negotiation. 

It  shows  an  utter  want  of  appreciation  for  the  national  value  of  our 
fisheries  and  the  respects  in  which  they  are  important.  It  shows  an 
utter  insensibility  to  the  national  honor,  dignity,  and  character. 

The  whole  tone  and  temper  of  the  negotiation  is  feeble,  spiritless, 
ignoble,  and  timid. 

I  have  already  spoken  of  the  failure  of  the  Executive  to  obtain  or 
even  to  demand  redress  of  grievances  and  insults.  The  President  and 
Secretary  had  committed  themselves;  they  had  in  their  diplomatic  cor- 
respondence committed  the  nation  to  tlie  assertion  that  our  fishermen 
and  the  nation  itself  had  been  outraged  by  these  proceedings.  Both 
1  louses  of  Congress  had  uniteil  in  an  expression  to  the  sanjo  ed'ect  This 
does  not  rest  on  American  authority  alone.  Mr,  Davies.  of  Trince  Ed- 
ward Island,  I  believe  an  eminent,  I  know  a  very  able  member  of  thd 
Canadian  Parliament,  who  followed  Sir  Charles  Tupper  in  the  recent 
debate,  and  who  will  not  be  charged  with  not  taking  the  side  of  Canada 
to  the  extreme,  said  in  that  debate: 

They  were  not  satisfied  with  putting  a  construction  upon  the  tronty  and  then 
Cftrrying  out  that  conslruolion  in  a  flnu  and  reasonable  way,  but  they  were  de- 
termined tliat  the  customs  laws  of  tlils  country  sliould  be  dnitr.u^od  in  to  harass. 
to  irritate,  to  worry,  and  drive  to  desperation  the  Amerioan  liHherinen,  at  it  did 
drive  them  to  desperation. 

Now,  what  occasion  was  there  to  reopen  the  old  dispute  as  to  the 


31 


W 


meaning  of  the  word  "bays  "  in  the  treaty  of  1818  ?  Tbat  had  noth- 
ing to  do  with  the  vexations  to  which  our  vessels  were  subjected.  We 
had,  as  has  been  seen,  two  judgments  which  settled  the  question  in 
our  favor.  The  matter  was  aubstautially  at  rest.  There  had  been  a 
little  Canadian  talk  on  the  subject,  but  Great  Britain  had  given  it  up. 
This  is  thoroughly  admitted  by  both  sides  in  the  colloquy  lately  had 
in  the  Parliament  of  Canada  between  Sir  Charles  Tupper  and  the  Hon. 
Peter  Mitchell,  lately  minister  of  marine  and  fisheries,  under  Sir 
John  Macdonald,  and  the  hi^'aest  authority  in  Canada  on  this  subject, 
anless  we  except  Sir  Charles  Tupper  himself. 

Sir  Chables  Tuppeb.  I  can  only  say  that  nobody  knows  better  than  my  hon- 
orable friend  that  Great  Britain  indaceJ  him  to  recall  hia  reijulations  and  in- 
Btructioiis.  after  he  had  is.iued  them,  and  restricted  his  jurisdiction  to  within  3 
tuilea  of  the  shore, 

Mr.  MiTdiEi.L.  And  why  ?  Because  Great  Britain  could  control  the  govern- 
Dient  of  thia  country,  ar.d  I  had  to  do  it;  tbat  is  wliy. 

SirOHARLnsTi'ppBE,  There  was  also  a  dispatch  from  Lord  Granville.  Now. 
under  the  pressure  of  this,  as  my  honorable  friend  hai  stated,  he  changed  his 
instructions  in  reference  to  the  10  miles  and  put  in  6  milo^,  and  forbade  bis  oftt- 
cers  to  interfere  with  the  American  tt.slioi'miMt,  not  as  in  the  first  instructions  he 
gave,  if  they  were  witliin3  miles  of  the  mouth  of  the  bay,  but  only  if  they  wore 
within  3  miles  of  the  shore,  and  he  says : 

"Until  further  instructed,  therefore,  you  will  not  interfere  with  any  Amerl- 
lean  fi-ilierman  unlen3  found  within  3  mile.'i  of  the  stioro,  or  within  3  miles  of  a 
line  diiiwn  across  tlie  mouth  of  a  bay  or  creek,  whioli,  thou)j:h  in  parts  more 
than  0  miles  wide  is  less  than  6  geographical  miles  in  width  at  its  mouth.  In 
the  case  of  any  other  bay,  as  Bale  desChaleurs,  for  example  " — 

The  very  bay  he  ixcluded  them  from  was  more  than  10  miles  wide — 

"you  will  not  Interfere  with  any  United  States  fishing  vessel,  or  boat,  or  any 
American  fishermen,  unless  they  are  found  within  3  miles  of  the  shore." 

Mr.  MiTc-iiKLi,.  Undor  positive  instructions  from  England,  against  my  repre- 
sentations and  everything  else. 

Sir  CnAUC.Es  Tni'i'Kit.  1  thinli  I  have  satisfied  my  honorable  friend  that,  as 
far  as  Her  M.vjesty's  Governmftut  were  concerned,  while  tlioy  maintained  the 
abstract  right  uridei  the  treaty,  the.v  were  unwilling  to  raise  the  question  of 
bays,  and  the  result  is,  as  iny  honorable  friend  knows,  that  for  the  List  thirty- 
four  years,  certainly  since  18.il — and  1  will  not  go  further  back  thati  ISS-l — tliero 
has  been  no  prnctioal  interference  with  Ameri<;an  fishing  vessels  unless  they 
were  within  3  miles  of  the  shore,  in  bays  or  clsewh,3re. 

See  how  completely  the-se  gentlemeu  both  admit  the  practical  refu.sal 
of  Gre.at  liritaiuforthe  liustforty  years  to  countenance  this  absurd  claim. 
Now,  what  did  you  want  to  open  it  for  ? 

Bat  in  one  respect  these  gentlem  ;n  are  wrong.  They  are  wrong  in 
8tatiugth;it  Great  Britain  maintained  a  different  view  (or  the  first  forty 
years.  I  have  shown  from  the  evidence  of  Mr.  liush  that  this  construc- 
tion of  that  treaty  was  never  he.ird  of  (or  the  first  twenty-five  years, 
from  1818  to  181.%  when  the  Wa.shington  was  seized. 

Now,  our  Aflministration  l)egin  this  treaty  l)y  nine  articles,  in  whi.;h 
they  give  np  suiistantially  this  entire  contention.  There  are,  it  is  true, 
some  trends  or  bends  of  tJio  coast  I'rom  which  tlte  preposterous  head- 
land theory,  which  Mr.  Bates,  the  umpire,  says  was  never  before  heard 
of,  might  exclude  iis.  But  I  do  not  now  recall  a  single  body  of  water 
wliich  appears  on  the  map  to  have  the  name  of  a  bay,  except  the  Bay  of 
Fundj  and  St.  George's  Bay,  to  which  we  are  hereafter  to  haveadmis- 
Bi<m  if  the  treaty  be  ratified.  Even  St  Anne's  Bay  the  treaty  shutfl 
against  us. 

Can  the  Senator  think  of  any  single  body  of  water  except  the  Bay  of 
Fundy  and  the  St.  George's  Bay,  in  which  we  have  admission,  wbicli 
boars  the  name  of  ' '  bay  ? ' ' 


mm 


|/*W«3ir*»^« W  ^ 


Jl   I 


32 


Mr.  GRAY.  I  can  point  you  out  some  that  have  no  geographical 
name. 

Mr.  HOAR.     You  do  not  recall  the  name? 

Mr.  GRAY.     I  think  I  can  point  you  out  some. 

Mr.  HOAR.  It  is  said  that  the  delimited  waters  have  little  value  as 
Ashing  grounds.  A  report  of  the  Committee  on  Foreign  Relations  made 
January  19,  1S87,  is  cited,  which  expresses  the  opinion  that  the  right  to 
take  fish  within  3  niiltt^  of  the  shore  is  of  no  practical  value  to  Amer- 
ican Hshermeu;  that  purse-seines  can  not  be  safely  or  profitably  used 
near  the  shore;  that  the  schools  of  mackerel  are  almost  always  found 
more  than  ;{  miles  from  land,  eitiier  in  great  bays  and  gulfs  or  out  at 
sea.  Suppose  this  all  to  be  true  to-day,  it  does  not  follow  that  oulr 
rights  are  of  no  val  ue.  The  coram  ittee  are  speaking  only  of  the  present 
use  of  a  right  to  go  witliin  3  miles  of  land.  They  expressly  except 
greiit  bays  and  gulfs.  Rut  the  habit  of  these  fish  to  resort  to  par- 
ticular localities,  which  has  changed  once,  may  change  again.  Mr. 
Lloyd,  in  his  letter  of  1815,  says: 

The  shores,  creeks,  and  outlets  ot  the  Bay  of  Fundy,  the  Bay  of  Chaleur,  th» 
Oulf  of  St.  Lawrence,  and  the  straits  of  Belle  Isle  are  the  great  ovarium  of 
fish.  In  clear  weather,  near  llie  shores,  myriads  are  visible,  and  the  strand  is 
almost  literally  paved  with  then). 

This  fi.sh,  which  haveeluinged  their  places  of  resort  before,  may  change 
again.  Artificial  propagation,  which  depends  for  its  importance  on  the 
unerring  habit  of  the  fish  to  return  to  the  place  where  it  was  hatched, 
may  stock  the.se  shores  and  inlets  anew  with  a  supply  Jia  abundant  a» 
of  old.  Whatever  the  committee  msy  have  said,  or  whatever  fishermen 
may  have  said,  as  to  the  present  value  of  these  bays  and  inlets  under 
the  conditions  now  existing,  or  for  a  few  years  past  or  to  come,  neither 
the  highest  American  nor  the  highest  Canadian  authorities  believe  the 
rights  we  yield  by  this  treaty  to  be  of  small  importance.  President 
Arthur,  in  his  message  of  December,  1883,  .says: 

I  suRgeat  that  Congress  create  a  commission  to  consider  the  general  ques- 
tion of  our  rightfl  in  the  fisheries,  and  the  means  of  opening  to  our  citizeno, 
under  just  and  enduring  conditions,  the  riehit/slooked  fishing  wcUeri  of  Britith 
North  Ameriea. 

When  the  President  wrote  these  words  we  had  everything  beyond 
dispute  except  what  Great  Britain  claims  we  renounced  by  the  treaty 
of  1818. 

"^    Now,  what  thinks  Canada?    Sir  Charles  Tupper,  in  his  speech  in 
which  he  reports  the  proceedings  of  the  negotiators,  says: 

There  was  one  subject  on  which  I  was  glad  toJlnd  that  the  American  plenl- 
potentiariesand  myselfwere  entirely  as  one.  Tlfty  expressed  no  wish  toacquire 
the  right  to  flsh  in  the  jurisdictional  waters  of  Canada.  With  that  expression 
of  opinion  on  their  part  I  heartily  concurred.  I  believe,  sir,  it  would  have  been 
difllcult  to  obtain  any  possible  treaty  that  would  re.pny  Qmadufor  having  her  fn- 
eatimable  ftshhig  grounds  throuni  open  again  to  United  Slates  Jiahermen. 

Mr.  Davies  answers  him: 

I  agree  that  the  inshore  fisheries  of  Canada  are  the  most  valuable  possessioa 
•he  has  to-d,ay. 

Note  this  remarkable  a.ssertion.    Mr.  Bayard  writes  to  Boston  that — 

The  sole  and  difticult  question  was  of  the  fishery  rights  of  one  oountr  i  in  tha 
lurlsdlctional  waters  of  another. 

Yet  Mr.  Bayard,  according  to  Sir  Charles  Tupper,  did  not  expresa 
the  slightest  wish  to  have  that  question  decided  in  our  favor. 

No.  Mr.  President,  thesurrender  of  these  ancient  fishing  rights,  which 
the  valor  of  our  fatheio  wr>n  for  us  and  the  diplomacy  of  our  fathers" 
secured  for  us,  can  not  be  palliated  by  the  feeble  excuse  that  they  are 


33 

of  little  worth.  Great  Britain  makes  no  contention  for  trifles.  These 
many  thousand  square  miles  of  tishing  ground  have  been,  are,  and  will 
hereafter  be  of  vast  importance  both  to  our  fisheries  and  to  our  naval 
school,  as  none  know  better  than  the  astute  men  who  represented  Great 
Britain  and  Canada. 

Note  the  remarkable  assertion  of  Sir  Charles  Tnpper  in  this  state- 
ment, made  on  his  responsibility  in  the  Canadian  Parliament,  that  they 
were  not  even  asked  by  the  American  commissioners  to  treat  with  us 
on  the  subject  which  Mr,  Bayard  declared  was  the  sole  and  difficult 
question  which  existed  between  the  two  Governments,  and  the  Acxer- 
ican  lights  were  all  surrendered. 

Nor  can  this  surrender  be  justified  on  the  ground  that  it  renounces 
any  cause  of  contention  or  makes  it  easier  for  the  fisherman  to  know 
whether  he  is  within  the  prohibited  limits.  The  present  limit  is  3 
miles  frcTu  the  shore.  That  can  be  judged  ea'^ily  by  a  practiced  e3'e. 
The  judgment  is  aided  by  a  thousand  landmarks  d  seamarks.  But 
nuder  the  treaty,  with  the  exception  of  six  of  the  olve  bays  thataro 
named,  the  line  of  exclusion  is  .'J  miles  seaward  from  an  imaginary  line 
drawn  across  the  water  where  the  bay  is  10  miles  wide.  Who  can  tell, 
in  the  night,  in  the  fog,  in  the  storm,  when  he  is  '.i  miles  from  an  imag- 
inary line  drawn  10  miles  through  the  water?  Do  not  you  think  the 
fishermen  wi  1  getover  the  line  sometimes,  even  innocently,  when  they 
are  after  a  school  of  mackerel  ?  If  you  get  over  the  line  and  are  caught 
fishing  or  preparing  to  fish,  your  vessel,  appurtenances,  cargo,and  sup- 
plies are  gone. 

Mr.  GUAY,  The  line  of  exclusion  of  which  the  Senator  speaks  is  to 
exclude  American  fishi"ng  vessels  from  fishing  within 

Mr.  HOAR,     Or  preparing  to  fish. 

Mr.  GRAY.  Or  preparing  to  fish.  I  do  not  know  thar.  the  Sena- 
tor's elo([uent  phrase  in  regard  to  vessels  being  unable  to  discern  that 
line  at  midnight  or  in  a  storm  is  very  applicable.  I  do  not  know  that 
a  vessel  can  undertake  to  fish  at  midniglit  or  in  a  storm  or  is  very  par- 
ticular about  the  line  where  it  may  be.  The  line,  as  I  understand  it, 
is  to  mark  the  limit  of  the  right  of  fishing  or  )»repariiig  to  fish.  I  ara 
speaking  of  tlie  Senator's  language  about  midnight  and  the  s'  .rm. 

Mr.  IIOAK.     Did  the  Senator  ever  hear  of  a  log? 
Oh,  yes,  and  have  seen  them. 
Does  the  Senator  suppose  that  anybody  would  fish  in 


But  take  the  case  the  Senator  mentiimed. 

Take  the  cjise  of  a  storm  at  night  and  the  line  then 


Mr.  GRAY. 
Mr.  HOAR. 

a  fog? 

Mr.  GRAY. 

Mr.  HOAR, 
being  seen. 

Take  this  stipulation  in  connection  with  ihe  provision  of  the  Cana- 
dian law,  which  I  shall  speak  of  again,  and  which  hiow  stands,  and  is 
hereafter  to  stand,  in  spite  of  tliis  treaty:  Revised  Statutes  of  Canada, 
chapter  94,  section  10,  of  fisliing  by  f(;reign  vtsssels: 

If  a  cli»i)ute  arisps  as  to  wliether  any  seizure  has  or  has  not  lieeii  lejfnl'y  made, 
or  as  to  wlietlier  the  person  who  seized  was  or  was  notanlliorized  to  seize  under 
this  act,  oral  evidence  may  be  talcen.and  tlie  bnrden  of  i>roviny;tlie  illegality  of 
the  seizure  shall  lie  upon  the  owner  or  claimant. 

Now  look  at  section  15: 

If,  on  any  Information  or  .suit  hrouijlit  to  trial  undor  this  act,  Jndffmcnt  \s  (jiven 
for  the  claimant,  and  Iho  court  or  ju<lfiO  oertilles  tliat  there  was  iirobal)le  cause 
for  seizure,  the  olainnint  sliall  not  bo  entitled  to  costs,  and  tlie  person  wlio  made 
the  seizure  shall  not  be  liable  to  any  indictment  or  suit  on  account  thereof;  and 
If  any  suit  or  prosecution  is  brought  nguinst  any  person  on  account  of  anyseic- 

HOAE 3 


ii 


(  \t 


.'' 


i}4 

lire  muter  thi«  act  and  ji.dgtnpnt  iw  given  ngainst  nim,  and  the  coiirt  or  jiidgo 
certUuvs  thiit  there  wiiH  prolxihlo  ciiusc  for  the  seizure,  the  phiiiititt',  hcsides  tho 
thii>i;  seized,  or  its  vulue,  shiill  not  recover  more  than  4  ceuUt  damages,  and  shal^. 
not  reeover  iiny  coats,  and  tho  defendant  shall  not  be  fined  more  than  20  cents. 

The  voyatje  may  bo  l)rok('n  ii]>;  tho  fisherman  may  be  absolutely 
innocent;  the  cargo  may  b«  spoiled;  the  ship  maybe  lost  while  in 
charge  of  the  men  who  seized  it;  yet  if,  on  this  oral  testimony,  the 
man  who  made  the  .seizure,  on  his  complaint,  can  get  a  judge  to  certify 
that  he  was  mi.sled  by  someliody  else,  or  by  mistake  of  fact  or  place,  so 
that  he  bad  probable  Ciiuso,  no  suit  whatever  will  lie  against  him;  and 
if  the  suit  be  iirst  brought  a,gainst  him  by  the  owner,  there  shall  be  no 
costs,  and  4  cents  damages.  The  testimony  is  to  be  oral.  Sen.itorg 
know  something  of  the  evidence  in  admiralty  suits  even  at  their  best. 
I  am  afraid  Captain  Quiglcy,  of  the  Canadian  schooner  Terror,  will 
find  little  diflieulty  in  persuading  his  sailors  to  think  and  to  testify 
that  every  American  ve,ssel  he  shall  board  hereafter  is  w^ithin  the  pro- 
hibited line. 

Eli  ward  Everett  told  me  that  he  was  once  sitting  at  midnight  on  the 
deck  ol'  the  Scotia  as  she  ]iassed  Cape  Race,  on  a  stormy  and  dark  night. 
lie  asked  Captain  .Judkins  how  near  he  supposed  himself  to  l>e  to  Cape 
liace.  The  captain  answered,  "  Within  5  orG  miles."  A  little  while 
afterwards  Mr.  l^verett  asked  him  how  near  lie  could  tell  his  actual 
position  with  certainty.  The  captain  answered,  "Within  8  or  10 
miles." 

Another  section  provides  that  three-qnarters  of  what  the  vessel  and 
cargo  sell  for,  which  is  fishing  or  prf;i)aring  to  fish  within  the  limits, 
may  be  distributed  among  the  sailors.  Oral  evidence  may  be  taken. 
The  sailors  on  board  the  Canadian  ve.s.sel  which  makes  the  seizure  are 
bribed,  if  I  may  use  so  gross  a  term,  by  three-qnarters  of  the  value  ot 
the  thing  seized,  and  the  burden  of  proof  is  put  upon  the  owner  of  the 
vessel  Avhidi  hsus  been  seized,  and  that  is  a  thing  which  does  not  seem 
to  have  entered  Mr.  Jiayard's  head. 

Now,  Mr.  President,  everybody  is  familiar  with  the  evidence  which 
is  got  in  admiralty  causes  from  sailors 

Mr.  GIIAY.  I  only  want  to  say,  if  the  Senntor  from  Massnd  in  setts 
will  indulge  me — and  I  do  aot  wish  to  interrupt  him  unnecessarily — 
that  the  provision  of  the  Canadian  law  which  places  the  burden  of  proof 
tipon  the  vessel  seized  to  disprove  Iter  contravention  of  that  provision, 
harsh  as  it  seems,  and  undoubtedly  is,  is  the  counterpart  of  the  laws  of 
the  United  States  in  regard  to  customs  seizures,  and  the  laws  of  the 
United  States  are  quite  as  rigorous,  and  they  place  in  so  many  Avorda 
the  burden  of  proof  upon  the  vessel  seized  to  disprove  the  contraven- 
tion of  customs  regulations  or  laws.  Bnt  however  that  may  be,  I  call 
the  attention  of  tlie  Senator  from  Massachnsetta  to  the  clans'^  in  the 
treaty  which,  for  the  first  lime  in  ourdiploma<^,y,  undertakes  by  treaty 
stipulation  to  limit  the  scope  of  the  municipal  law  of  another  country 
in  its  eflects  and  operations  \ipon  our  fishermen. 

Mr.  HOAR,  We  difi'er  altogetiier  in  our  point  of  view.  I  utterly 
deny  that  the  customs  laws  throughout  this  country  contain  ai;  pro- 
vi.sious  which  are  like  that;  but  the  Senator  from  Del"  ware,  if  he  will 
give  me  his  attention  for  one  moment,  I  think  will  sco  the  very  great 
difference  between  the  two  cases. 

We-  have  the  right  to  impose  on  ves.sela  that  import  merchandise  into 
this  country  the  obligation  of  showing  that  when  they  come  in  they  are 
in  compliance  with  our  law.  They  are  within  our  jnrisdiction,  and, 
reasonable  or  unreawnable,  they  have  no  cause  of  complaint.     But  here 


35 


~ 


is  the  fisherman  of  the  United  States  exercising  hi.s  right  on  the  high 
Bean,  or  his  riglit  where  lie  is  as  much  witliin  the  exercise  of  his  own 
property  as  tlie  Cau.^dian  is  in  his  own  dwelling.  And  now  to  say  that 
a  little  Canadian  vessel  may  seize  an  American  who  is  in  the  exercise 
of  his  own  public  right,  secured  to  hira  by  the  law  of  nations  and  by 
special  treaty,  a  right  which  he  got  for  Great  Britain  in  the  lirst  place, 
and  that  she  shall  hold  over  his  head  the  obligation  to  have  his  vessel 
confiscated — and  there  is  another  provision  of  that  law  whicli  provides 
tiiat  if  the  Judge  says  there  is  probable  c^-iuse  for  the  seizure  there  shall 
be  only  4  (;ents  damages  and  20  cents  costs  for  the  recovery — to  say  that 
that  should  be  done  when  a  Canadian  court,  on  the  evidence  of  a  lot  of 
sailors  who  are  to  have  three-tjuarters  of  the  thing  in  dispute  as  a  bribe, 
shall  certify  that  there  was  probable  cjiuse  for  seizure  !  I  can  not  believe 
tiiat,  upon  reflection,  my  iionorable  and  patriotic  friend  from  Delaware 
will  stand  here  and  advocate  or  justify  such  a  condition  of  things. 

Mr.  GRAY.  I  did  not  attempt,  if  the  .Senator  wilhU low  me,  to  ad- 
vocate or  justify  anything.  I  merely  wanted  to  point  out  the  fact  that 
barbarous  as  it  may  seem — and  1  think  a  great  tfeal  about;  our  customs 
laws  is  barbarous 

Mr.  HOAU.     This  is  no  customs  law. 

Mr.  GRAY.  I  know  it  is  not;  but  it  is  a  law  which  does  undertake 
to  place  upon  the  vessel  seized  just  that  bar))arous  and  unnatural  rule 
that  the  party  seized  shall  have  the  burden  placed  upon  him  lo  disprove 
the  allegation. 

Mr.  HOAR.  Does  not  my  honoraVde  friend  see  that  we  are  talking 
about  the  condition  of  an  American  tishermnu,  prosecuting  his  fishing 
right  on  the  high  seas?  Suppose  a  little  Canadian  fellow  comes  along 
and  takes  a  vessel  worth  3i20,OUO  or  .*30,000aud  says,  "  You  were  not  on 
the  high  seas,  but  you  were  a  rod  over  3  miles  from  this  10-mile  line  drawn 
from  headland  to  headland.  I  take  you  into  Canada. ' '  A  nd  there  thosa 
sailors  are  to  have  three-quarters  of  that  sum  distributed  among  them. 
To  claim  that  the  man  was  a  few  rods  one  way  or  the  other  from  this 
line,  what  has  that  to  do  with  the  American  customs  laws? 

Mr.  GRAY.     Nothing,  except  that  it  is  a  mode  of  enforcing  the  law. 

Mr.  HOAR.  A  man  coming  to  an  American  port  submits  himself 
to  American  authority  and  American  jurisdiction  and  American  law. 

I  would  not  speak  with  disrespect  of  the  Canadian  courts.  I  have 
known  personally  some  of  their  jurists.  There  are  others  who  stand 
in  high  and  deserved  repute  among  the  great  lights  of  jurisprudence. 
But  I  do  not  know  what  local  tribunals  may  be  charged  with  the  ad- 
ministration and  interpretation  of  this  law.  Our  Canadian  friends  will 
pardon  mo  if  I  must,  in  this  instance,  judge  of  their  jurisprudence  by 
their  legislation.  The  Canadian  j'nlge  must  be  expected  to  interpret 
their  laws  in  the  spirit  which  inspired  them,  and  to  carry  out  the  i)ur- 
pose  for  which  they  were  confessedly  enacted.  That  purpose  was,  a.s 
Mr.  Davies  declared  in  the  Parliament  of  Canada,  "  that  the  customs 
laws  of  this  country  shall  be  dragged  in  to  harass,  to  irritate,  to  worry, 
and  drive  to  de.speration  the  American  fishermen,  as  it  did  drive  them 
to  desperation."  That  Mr.  Davies  is  high  authority  will  appear  from 
H  sketch  of  his  career,  which  I  take  from  Appletou's  Biograi)hical  Dic- 
tionary and  a,ppend  to  these  remarks.     (See  Appendix  J.) 

Mr.  GRAY.  Will  the  Senator  allow  me  to  read,  while  I  have  th«» 
book  in  my  hand,  five  lines  from  our  Revised  Statutes,  which  support 
the  assertion  I  have  made. 

Mr.  HOAR.    Yes,  sir. 


30 


Mr.  OKAY.  I  read  from  section  909  of  the  Revised  Rtatutea,  which 
says: 

In  Hults  or  inrorraiitioiit  bnnislit,  where  any  seiztire  is  niii<li>  pnrHiinnt  to  anj' 
act  provUliii!:";  for  or  ref^iilntin^  the  coUei'tion  of  duties  on  importH  or  tonnage. 
If  tlie  properly  is  claimed  by  any  person,  tlie  bnnlenof  proof  hIiuII  lie  nponnuclx. 
clainiiint:  I'rovuled,  Tliat  probable  cause  is  sliown  for  such  proscouliou,  to  b«» 
judged  of  V)y  tlio  court. 

Mr.  HOAR,     That  is,  the  burden  of  proving  the  property. 

Mr.  GRAY.  But  putting  the  burden  of  proof  on  tiie  "claimant" 
the  Senator  of  course  knows  is  quite  technical. 

Mr.  HOAR.  I  can  not  understiind  liow  a  lawyer  of  sncit  eminence 
as  my  lionorable  friend,  of  the  patriotic  purpose  and  candor  w  hich 
we  kiu)w  he  possesses,  should  in  the  zeal  of  his  defense  of  this  extraor- 
dinary perlormance  satisfy  himself  that  there  is  any  resemblance  be- 
tween a  United  States  statute,  which  says  that  where  a  man  claims 
property  the  burden  of  proof  sliall  be  on  him,  and  a  statute  which  says 
that  when  property  in  niy  possession  is  seized — it  may  be  on  the  high 
seas — the  burden  of  proof  is  put  upim  me  to  prove  that  that  seizure  was- 
illegal.  I  can  not  see,  myself,  any  possible  resemblance  between  the- 
two. 

Mr.  GRAY.  If  the  Senator  will  pardon  me,  it  is  not  very  relevant, 
but  at  the  same  time  it  is  a  question  of  accuracy.  This  provision  of 
the  Revised  Statutes  does  just  that  thing,  and  where  there  is  a  seizure 
made  and  there  is  a  claimant  (which  is  a  tcchiiicul  won!  for  a  man  who 
is  a  defendant  in  a  proceeding  in  rem),  the  burden  of  proof  is  on  him 
as  to  everything  that  is  charged,  not  only  as  to  the  ownership  of  the 
property,  but  as  to  the  infraction  of  the  customs  laws. 

Mr.  HOAR.  Does  the  Senator  mean  to  say  that  if  I  could  seize  a 
British  vessel  in  the  port  of  New  York  I  could  hold  on  to  that  vessel? 

Mr.  GRAY.  So  far  as  the  charge  made  was  for  the  infraction  of  the 
laws  as  to  customs  duties. 

Mr,  HOAJi.     J  am  constrained  to  say  that  I  do  not  believe  it. 

Mr.  GRAY.     The  statute  says  so.     1  do  not  say  so. 

Mr.  HOAR.  I  do  not  believe  the  statute  meant  any  such  thing.  If 
it  did,  there  is  no  possible  resemblance  between  seiziiig  the  vessel  of 
another  nation  when  it  is  in  its  own  right,  in  its  own  place,  and  a  ve.«i- 
eel  going  into  the  ]«>rt  of  another  country  and  submitting  it 

Mr.  GRAY.     It  is  a  barbarous  rule  of  evidence,  but  it  is  the  rule. 

Mr.  HOA  R.     There  is  no  possible  resemblance  between  the  two  cases. 

These  llrstnine  articles  of  the  treaty,  then,  instead  of  surrcmlering  a 
thiugof  no  value  in  the  interest  of  peace,  surrender  wliat  is  of  great  value 
in  the  interest  of  discord.  The  purpose  of  Canada  to  drive  our  fishermen 
from  the  sea  and  to  compel  us  to  opeti  our  markets  to  supi)ort  theirs, 
will  remain  unchanged,  or  will  be  stimulated  to  new  ell'orts  by  this 
achievement.  A  bundled  seizures,  a  humlrcd  vexations,  a  hundred 
(juarrels  will  arise  where  one  has  arisen  before.  If  dishonor  to  our 
flag,  if  vexation,  bruialitj',  inhospitality,  outrage,  have  produced  for 
her  this  harvest,  what  motive  will  she  have  for  other  conduct  here- 
alter?  She  bus  tried  already,  to  her  entire  satislaction,  what  virtue 
there  is  in  stones.  She  will  not  be  likely  to  resort  to  words  or  gra.S3 
hereafter. 

Within  the  past  three  weeks  the  news  comes  of  the  American  ship- 
Bridgewater,  a  vessel  of  1,557  tons,  which  put  int^)  Shelburne,  Nova 
Scotia,  in  distress  for  repairs,  having  encountered  a  heavy  gale.  SI  ©■ 
had  sailed  from  St.  John,  New  I'.runswick,  for  laverpool  with  a  carg(»- 
of  deals.  The  owners  of  the  cargo,  foreseeing  a  long  detention,  trans- 
ferred it  to  another  ship.     The  owner  of  the  vessel  offered  it  at  auc- 


37 


tion  to  see  if  he  conld  sell  it,  hut  pot  no  bids.  On  this  the  Canodiaa 
ciistoniM  oflicer  aeiz-'-d  it  n»  jiu  impoi tatiun,  demanded  2o  ptT  cent,  duty, 
and  held  it  lor  elKhty-oue  days.  The  Government  then  decided  that 
the  Hcizure  was  illegal.  The  collector  tluiu  proposed  to  relea.se  the 
ship  on  conditiou.ttiut  the  owner  would  withdraw  his  protest,  and  re- 
leawe  the  olHcer  who  made  the  seizure  and  the  Government  from  all 
claim  lor  damages.  Tjiis  the  owner  in(li{j;nantly  refused.  The  ship 
was  then  released  without  condition.  Tlie  minister  of  justice  gave  the 
opinion  that  the  owner  had  no  cl'iim  against  the  seizing  officer,  and  the 
(tov«>rnment  refused  to  eiit«Ttain  his  demand  for  redress.  The  owner 
lost  his  charter-party  an*!  \>vs  vovage,  and  thinks  he  was  damaged  full 

VH  Macow  Street,  BBOOKLvrr,  June  5, 1888. 
Pkar  Mir  :  I  tlmnk  you  for  ^>ur  valued  fnvor  of  yesterday's  date, 
Wlii'ii  Mr.  Rowell,  tlie  iniuiHter  of  cuHtomM  of  Canada,  handed  lae  his  letter, 
whic'li  you  huv«i  in  |)riiit,  dvoliiiin^  to  entortaiu  my  claira  lor  compeiiHation,  I 
reuuirkod,  after  carefully  reading  it,  "Jt  1h  unfortunate  you  confcHS  to  th« 
violalicMi  of  law,  but  deny  tlie  reilress.  Tlin  matter  will  now  go  to  the  Stat* 
_De|>urtnieiit,  il  heiiijja  jjovfriunental  rather  than  a  perHonal  matter."  Mr.  Row- 
•ell  re()li«'d,,witli  a  pmile,  "  Vou  will  m-t  nothinif  there.  Of  all  the  claims  which 
have  been  lod;je(!  thoru  agruinst  the  jroverument,  we  have  not  been  called  upon 
topaybiie  ;  we  .simply  heard  uofhirtj^niore  about  them."  At  the  time  I  Ihoutfht 
both  tlii^t  and  T^is  letter  were  intended  to  fjiyor  me  with  a  eompromi-^e,  th© 
<leputx  minister  of  justice  haviujj,  a  moment  before,  in  the  ante-room,  put  ma 
in  a^ptisition  to  make  nucli  oiler. 

J  eati  not  see,  how  Air.  iSAyard  can  he  indifferent  to  thi.s.  Not  to  ask  for  an 
pjrpliuuilion  anil  reme<iy  fof  the  pecuniarv  injury  would  sim[{Jy  be  a  coiifeHsion 
that  in  treaty  lawH.  in  which  our  CJovernnient  area  party  to,  we  have  no  rifichts 
which  even  dependencies  are  bound  to  respect.  The  Htate  Department  munk 
have  received  Ihe^apers  Friday  morning,  but  as  yet  I  am  without  aoknuwledir- 


tuent. 

•Very  truly,  yours, 

« 
Hon.  Wii.r.TAM  Co(3sWEi,i,, 

Ijouse  of  Represenlativen,  Waihington,  D.  0. 


JOHN  n.  ALLEN. 


Mr.  GRAY.. 
Mr.  HOAR. 
Mr.  GRAY, 
ment? 

Mr.  HOAR. 


What  is  the  date  of  the  letter? 

June  .'),  1888. 

"What  connection  has  that  with  the  State  Depart- 


The  purpose,  of  reading  this  letter  is  not  to  comment 
on  the  failure  of  the  State  Department  to  do  something  about  this. 

Mr.  GRAY.     It  does  not  allege  it. 

Mr.  HOAR.  No,  it  does  not  allege  it.  It  is  to  call  the  attention  of 
the  Senate  to  the  fact  that  the  Canadian  minister  of  customs  smiled  in  the 
face  of  the  injured  citizen  and  told  him  that  they  never  heard  anything 
more  from  the  American  administration  abotit  these  claims  which  the 
American  administration  over  and  over  again  had  denounced  as  out- 
rageous and  brutal  and  inhuman.  * 

When  Mr.  Seward  made  a  speech  from  a  balcony  in  IRGG  and  asked 
his  audience  what  he  should  say  to  the  iMu^eror  of  Fiance,  a  voice  in 
the  crowd  cried  out,  "Tell  him  to  get  out  of  Mexico!  "  The  Emperor 
got  out  of  Mexico  pretty  rapidly  when  Mr.  Seward  gave  him  the  inti- 
mation. When  General  Grant  iusked  his  countrymen  who  had  suflercd 
from  the  Alabama  to  leave  their  bill  for  collection  with  him.  England 
sent  her  commis-sioueivs  here  with  an  apology  and  paid  the  In  11.  When  Mr. 
Adams  was  told  by  Earl  Ru-ssell  that  the  law  ofticersof  the  Crown  found 
no  law  to  prevent  the  going  out  of  the  rams,  Mr.  Adams  quietly  an- 
swered, "It  is  superfluous  to  oljserve  to  your  lordship  that  this  is  war." 
The  rams  were  stopped  in  an  hour.  WbenSali.sbuiy,  the  jm'seiit  prime 
minister,  was  told  by  Mr.  Evarts  that  the  Fortune  Kay  afTair  wouldhe 
treated  as  abrogation  of  the  treaty,  he  reversed  the  decision  and  paid 


33 

the  hill.  There  V as  Kepuhli&in  diplomaov.  The  wp.ikost  Canadian 
ollicial  laughs  in  ti\e  fac*;  of  uii  American  <*i>iiipliiiiiaut  when  In-  thinks 
of  (j  rover  Cleveland  and  Mr.  Bayard. 

The  Senator  from  Alahania  told  us  the  other  day  how  he  thonfrht 
the  South  would  look  at  this  husinc&s.  He  said,  if  I  correctly  undor- 
Btood  him,  thiit  liio  m  laters  of  these  fishing  vessels  were  holders  and 
importers  of  slaves.  Ho  said  the  fishermen  wereasniull  per  cent,  of  the 
population  of  the  country,  lie  said,  too,  as  I  understood  him,  '  'lat  if 
the  issue  were  presented  to  the  peopleof  the  South  whether  we  sliould 
have  free  ll.sh  or  a  war  with  J']nj?iand,  they  would  prefer  free  llsh.  He 
now  says,  in  reply  to  the  Senator  from  Maine,  that  what  ho  said  was 
this: 

I  admotilMlied  that  side  of  tlie  ( 'liuinbpr.  and  I  rcspoctfiilly  do  It  a<;uiM.  that  if 
you  present  to  the  )>eo|)le  of  tlie  Uiiileil  Htiiles  K"'i>K  to  war  wilh  (ireiit  liritiiin 
RKnin!<t  tlie  ((uestlon  of  letting  in  fibli  free  of  duty,  you  have  a  dangerouH  issue 
before  you  ;  tliiit  is  all. 

What  an  utterance  is  that  I  American  vessels  hy  the  hundred  .seized, 
insulted,  hara.sscd,  vexed,  dishonored.  The  .\merican  fla'4  hauled  down 
from  an  American  raiusthead.  Amtuican  mariners  in  foreign  ports  sub- 
jected to  treatment  which  our  Democratic  Secretary  declares  is  "out- 
rageous," "brutal,"  "inhuman,"  "Inhospitable."  All  this  is  done 
to  bully  us  to  put  fish  on  our  free-list,  that  the  lishery  marine  and  the 
naval  strcnmh  of  our  rival  may  grow,  and  our  fishing  marine  and  naval 
nursery  may  dwindle  and  decay.  And  when  the  Senate  of  the  United 
States  is  considering  what  to  do  about  it  the  Senator  from  Alabama 
tells  us  the.se  sailors  of  ours  are  few  in  number,  and  that  "a  question 
between  putting  fish  on  the  free-list  and  war  with  Great  Britain  is  n 
very  dangerous  is.sue."  Are  we  China,  that  ojiium  is  to  be  forced  into 
our  markets  at  the  point  of  British  bayonets  or  the  mouth  of  British 
cannon  ? 

The  .solid  South  is  represented  in  this  body  by  ;54  votes.  They  are 
all  Demo(?rats  .save  one.  >tis  se^itis  soon  to  be  filled  by  a  Democratic 
8UCces.sor.  Of  that  34,  29  ha.  ■)  inserted  in  the  ofiicial  catalogue  of  the 
Senate  as  their  title  to  honorable  remea  l)nince,  a  statement  of  distin- 
guished service  in  an  attempt  to  dentroy  their  country  and  bring  its 
proud  flag  in  dishonortothe  du.st.  They  are  fond  of  telling  us  tluitall 
that  is  changed  now.  They  say  that  if  the  count  ry  shall  over  be  in  peril 
again,  if  the  Hag  shall  be  menaced  anew,  whether  it  be  foreign  levy  or 
domestic  malice,  it  shall  find  noreadier  or  braver  defenders  than  among 
the  men  who  stood  in  arms  against  it.  I,  lor  one,  havt;  never  ques- 
tioned their  sincerity.     I  do  not  (jiK^stion  it  now. 

I  know,  as  the  people  of  the  North  know,  that  there  was  courage  in 
thestout  hearts  which  maintained  that  conflict  tor  tho.so  four  long  years. 
I  do  not  believe  that  the  men  of  the  noble  Southern  stock,  who  dis- 
played, even  when  in  the  wrong,  the  courage,  the  atrcction  for  homo 
and  State,  the  aptness  for  command,  the  constancry,  the  capacity  lor 
great  affection  and  generous  emotion,  the  readiness  to  encounter  pov- 
erty and  death  and  exile,  which  won  the  admiratioti  of  mankind, 
when  the  Hag  of  the  country  which  liius  forgiven  them  and  restored 
them  and  trusted  tliem  is  insulted  and  dishonored,  will  be  quite  con- 
tent to  take  their  tone  from  the  Secretary  of  State  or  the  Senator  from 
Alabama. 

There  is  no  occa-iion  for  a  note  of  war.  Firmness  and  strength  anil 
calmness  and  dignity  and  understanding  and  maintaining  our  own  just 
rights  are  much  more  likely  to  keep  peace  than  the  supplicating  and 
yielding  diplomacy  of  the  present  .Administration. 


^li 


39 

Unt  the  President  expresses  hi3  peculiar  satisfaction  with  the  ninth 

artii'le. 

NolhinK  in  thlxtrpnty  shall  interrupt  or  fifTecl  the  free  navisatioo  oftl  eStniU 
of  Cunso  by  the  llabiiit;  vessela  uf  the  United  Stivle:^. 

He  says: 

Tlio  iiitlntrrrii|ited  navlffiitio:^  of  the  Strait  of  Canso  ia  expressly  and  for  the 
first  time  ulVirincd. 

The  treaty  does  not  pay  that.     It  says:  * 

N(ithin|{  in  Ihia  treaty  ghall  interrupt  or  alTcct  the  free  navigration  by  flahing' 

vesHelrt. 

If  'here  he  any  implication,  it  is  that  other  vesstls  can  not  go  there, 

if  Canada  ohjects.     JUit  this  is  an  ancient  way  I'roni  tiie  open  sea  to 

the  Gulf  of  St.  Lawrence,  where  our  right  is  as  nnc^uestioned  as't  is 

to  the  Gulf  of  Mexico.     Who  ever  denied  it?    Kir  Cliarles  Tn  )per 

utterly  repudiates  the  President's  notion.     He  says  that  was  nothing 

new. 

Wo  provided  simply  that  nothing  in  tlii.<t  treaty  ahotild  interrupt  the  free 
navigation  of  the  Straits  of  Canso,  as  previously  enjoyed  by  tlMliini;  vessels,  to 
which  we  confined  it. 

This  was  put  in  hy  the  Canadians  themselves,  hocanse  they  had  de- 
limited Cliedabucto  Bay.  1  suppose  I'lesifient  Cleveland's  next  move 
will  be  to  surrender  our  right  to  visit  two-thirds  of  the  Mediterranean, 
and  then  claim  j^reat  credit  that  he  has  saved  the  right  to  go  througti 
the  Straits  of  Gibraltar. 

But  the  tenth  and  eleventh  articles,  Avhich  stipulate  what  United 
States  fishinji  vessels  may  or  may  not  do  in  the  ports,  hays,  and  har- 
bors of  Canada  and  Newfoundland  are  those  on  which  Mr.  Cleveland 
specially  plumes  himself. 

I  will  append  these  art'cies  to  my  remarks.  [See  Appendix  K.] 
They  jjrovide  that  our  fishing  vessels  when  they  enter  hays  or  harbors 
where  they  can  not  go  to  fish,  shall  conlbrm  to  harbor  regulations  com- 
mon to  them  and  those  of  Canada; 

That  they  need  not  report,  '^  ter,  or  clear  when  they  go  ip  for  shelter 
or  repairs,  except  when  they  stay  more  than  twenty-four  hours  or  com- 
municate with  the  shore; 

They  shall  not  be  liable  for  compulsory  pilotage: 

Nor,  when  they  are  there  for  either  of  the  four  permitted  objects,  for 
harbor  or  like  dues; 

When  they  go  in  under  stress  of  weather  they  may  transsliip.  reload, 
or  sell  their  lish,  subject  to  duty,  when  this  is  necessary  as  incident  to 
repairs,  and  may  replenish  lost  or  damaged  supplies  and  provisions; 

In  ca.se  of  death  or  sickness  shall  have  needful  facilities; 

May  have  license  to  buy  provisions  and  .supplies  for  their  homeward 
voyage; 

And  may  be  accorded  on  all  occasions  such  facilities  for  casual  or 
needful  provisions  and  supplies  as  are  ordinarily  granted  to  trading 
vessels. 

Now,  unless  I  am  mistaken,  every  one  of  these  things  is  and  has  been 
for  nearly  sixty  years  granted  to  Canadian  fishing  vessels  in  Massachu- 
etts  and  Maine  in  recognition  of  the  obligations  of  common  decency, 
or  international  courtesy. 

This  is  the  first  treaty  in  our  history,  unless  made  with  some  half- 
savage  chief,  or  in  regard  to  ports  closed  to  general  commerce,  where 
there  has  been  an  attempt  to  stipulate  for  the  civilities  of  life.  It  is  a 
treaty  which,  for  the  first  time,  recognizes  the  doctrine  that  fishermen 
are  to  be  dealt  witii  a.s  an  inferior  and  less  favored  class,  to  whom  may 


\Ui 


I 


40 


i|li 


be  riglitfully  and  properly  denied,  with  oar  consent,  the  courtesies  and 
privilej^es  extended  to  all  other  comnierce. 

Tlie  treaty  oClBlH  limited,  it  is  true,  the  rights  of  oar  fishermen  in 
British  North  America  to  shelter,  repair,  wood  and  'vater.  Ihit  that 
was  an  exception  in  their  favor.  That  was  an  assertion  of  the  doctrine 
of  inte  national  low,  that  fishe/nien,  who  provide  food  for  mankind, 
are  the  favuniey,  of  that  law.  Some  writers,  some  treaties,  I  think, 
declare  tliat  they  shall  not  !•.  di'  urbed  in  their  occupation  even  in  war. 
Yet  now,  because,  in  the  day  of  our  weakness,  when  every  American 
port  in  British  dominions  was  hermetically  sealed  against  all  our  ships, 
the  diplomacy  of  John  CJuincy  Adams  and  Albert  (Jallatin  gained  lor 
our  IJshermen  privileges  denied  to  all  others,  the])rosent  Administratiou 
submits  to  put  them  in  a  situation  of  marked  inferiority  to  all  others. 
J  confess  I  do  not  think  it  quite  consistent  with  a  proper  self-respect 
to  be  negotiating  with  my  neighbor  jnst  how  lar  he  shall  and  how  far 
he  shall  not  behave  to  me  like  a  gentleman. 

'lheobjeutiontothe.se  articles  is  not  merely  the  trifling  nature  ot 
the  concessions  they  gain,  but  it  is  their  clear  implication  that  we  have 
no  ground  of  rational  complaint  if  the  things  they  do  not  concede  shall 
liereafter  be  denied  to  ns.  The  ve'isel  of  commerce,  under  the  modern 
law  of  nations,  is  welcomed  and  made  at  home.  Tt  is  subjected  to  no 
other  restriction  than  thatof  making  pi  oof  of  its  character  and  friendly 
purpose,  a  reasonable  contribution  t.)  port  expenses,  and  compliance 
with  the  customs  laws  of  the  coui.t  ry  where  it  finds  hospitality.  It 
conies  and  goes  at  its  pleasure;.  It  is  a  grossly  unfriendly  act  to  deny 
it  liospitality,  freedom  of  intercourse,  jjrotection,  eciual  access  to  the 
courts  if  any  man  do  it  a  wrong,  fair,  i)rompt,  equal,  impartial  trial  it 
it  be  charged  with  doing  a  wrong  to  any  man. 

I  refuse  my  assent  to  this  treaty,  'f  for  no  other  rea'^on,  because  it 
declares  and  implies  that  the  Mas.sa';hu setts  fisherman,  with  the  full 
consent  of  his  own  Government,  is  hereafter  to  be  exempt  from  this 
humane  and  beneficent  pi  inciplo.  Whatever  of  the  decencies  of  life  are 
for  him  or  for  the  Hag  which  floats  over  him  do  not  come  as  of  right 
and  in  honor.  They  are  to  be  doled  out  and  :iieasured  out  and  begged 
lor,  and  bargained  for,  and  paid  for.  I  have  been  told  that  it  is  an 
offense  among  the  dwellers  in  the  mountain  regions  of  the  South  if  the 
host  does  not  invite  the  guest  to  take  the  whisky  bottle  into  liis  own 
hand,  "lie  allowanced  me,  sir,"  was  the  descriptiou  I  once  heard  or 
that  kind  of  hospitality.  Yet,  the  American  mariner  is  hereafter  to 
pet  cold  water  and  shelter  on  such  terms  only  at  the  will  of  petty  Ca- 
nadian officials.    . 

Mr.  Hayard  says  if  we  will  look  at  complaints  which  we  have  heard 
from  our  lisheruieu  we  shall  find  that  none  of  them  can  happen  again 
under  this  treaty.  I  am  amazed  that  he  can  say  so.  I  shall  s^)eak  ot 
that  presently.  But  one  of  the  causes  of  complaint  is  that  when  our 
fishermen  go  in  for  shelter  the  Canadian  officials  do  not  leave  it  to  their 
discretion  to  say  when  the  storm  is  over,  and  they  can  safely  depart, 
but  order  them  oft"  into  tbe  storm  Ireijuently  before  it  is  over.  The 
skipper  of  the  fishing  vessel  is  apt  to  bo  tolerably  v. catherwise.  He 
knows  the  signs  olf  I^abrador,  or  in  the  Gulf  of  St.  Lawrence,  or  in  the 
Bay  of  Fundy  quite  as  well  as  a  iieutenanton  any  British  cruiser  or  any 
petty  port  olljcial.  Ho  is  in  hurry  enough  to  '"'t  back  to  his  fishing; 
but  be  is  not  permitted  to  be  the  judge,  \vhenh.  gets  in  for  shelter  in  u 
storm,  how  long  the  safety  of  hiu  vessel  requires  him  to  stav.  This  in 
one  of  the  most  fre.jueut  causes  of  trouble,  and  is  left  wholly  without 
remedy. in  the  treaty. 


41 


I  have  a  letter  from  the  Hon.  Jdmes  Giflord,  known  personally  to 
me  na  a  highly  respectable  citizen  of  Proviucetown,  Mass.  and  late  col- 
lector of  that  port,  in  which  he  says: 

The  other  matter  agHinst  which  there  in  indignant  protest,  namely,  theorder- 
Intc  American  fishing  vessels  to  sea  by  ofTieers  of  Dominion  cruiserM  is  in  dero- 
gation of  the  dignity,  riglits,  and  intertstsof  master,  crew,  owners,  and  the 
country  they  re|>reMent.  I'aptains  knowing  better  than  any  otlier  persons  can 
know  the  condition  of  tli(!ir  vessel,  sails,  spars,  and  rigg'ng,  and  as  well  able 
to  judge  of  the  weather  as  are  ot  hers,  esieein  themselves  the  best  judges  of  when 
to  go  to  sea,  and  reganl  this  interference  by  foreign  oftieers  as  a  gross  indignity 
to  themselves  f.idto  the  flag  under  which  they  sail.  In  no  other  country  is 
this  outrage  perpetrated  upon  captains  of  Amevican  vessels.  This  arbitrary  in  ■ 
terfereiice  with  the  perogjitlves,  responsibilities,  and  <liities  of  our  masters,  is 
not  only  keenly  felt,  but  tlieir  vessels  and  crews  are  thereby  exposed  to  serious 
peril  and  disaster.    The  following  incident  illustrates  this  iact : 

Capt.  Hamuel  T.  Hatch,  of  Ibis  place,  master  of  the  schooner  Stowell  .Sher- 
man, in  Augu.st,  1880,  -while  iHsbingort' the  north  coast  of  Prince  Kdward  Island, 
in  company  with  forty-Pve  other  American  fishermen,  was  compelled  by  a 
northeast  blow  to  seek  shelter  in  the  small,  ni>rr»)W  harbor  of  Osemniieque. 
This  hiirbor  is  also  barred  b.v  a  dangerous  shoal  across  its  moutli  that  takes  up 
vessels,  especiiilly  those  of  conaitlerable  draught,  and  particularly  when  the  ^ea 
is  running  high.  After  lying  there  twenty-foiir  hours,  the  commander  of  t^e 
''ruiser  Ilowlett  entered  the  harbor  and  ordered  the  entire  fleetotfiit  once,  -vl- 
though  the  water  had  somewhat  moderated  and  the  wind  ha<l  changed,  the 
weather  continued  too  rough  to  fish,  and  the  easterly  gale  nf  the  previous 
days  caused  the  sea  still  to  break  on  the  bar  at  the  eutrant^e  to  the  harbor,  thus 
rendering  it  very  hazardous  for  vessels  to  attcm|>l  the  ivi-isage  out.  The  com- 
nuinder  of  the  Ilowlett  wits  respectfully  requested  to  delay  the  execution  of  his 
order,  wliieh  he  peremptorily  refused  to  do. 

Captain  Gnihani,  of  the  schooner  .\.  R.  Cri  If  enden, of  Gloucester,  remonstrated 
protesting  that  he  was  in  «!hargc  of  a  vauiable  vessel  and  cargo  and  for  which 
he  was  responsible;  that  there  was  great  danger  of  stranding  iiis  vessel  should 
he  then  try  to  go  out,  an.l,  if  permitted  to  remain,  he  wouUl  sail  as  soon  as  the 
weather  would  safely  i)ern»'!t.  To  this  the  Dominion  otliccr  replied  that  he  <lid 
not  care  how  valuable  his  vessel  and  cargo  were,  he  should  leave  the  harbor 
immediately.  The  entire  fleet  thereupon  hove  tlicir  cables  and  hoisted  sail, 
preparatory  to  geiting  under  way.  (Schooner  Fanny  .Sperling,  being  the  first  to 
make  the  tr'al  to  leave  port,  was  so^.n  stranded. 

The  coujmauder  of  the  Howlett,  alarmed  at  the  result  of  his  order,  went  to 
her  a.SHistance,  called  upon  the  <^rews  of  the  other  American  tishermon  for  aid, 
and  revoked  his  order  to  sail.  Hut  for  the  tiniely  aid  ihus  rcndercii  by  the  com- 
bined crews  of  the  fleet  the  Fanny  .Sperling  would  have  become  a  total  wr(;ck  — 
a  fate  that  would  probabl.v  have  l)een  shared  by  many  of  her  oouipauions  li>i<l 
not  the  insolent  ordet  of  the  Dominion  ollicer  been  canceled.  To  subject  the 
safety  of  the  vessels  and  crews  of  our  fishermen  to  the  caprice  and  insoimfe  of 
petty  Dominion  ofTieers  is  a  grievance  that  ought  not  longer  to  ho  tolerated  by 
or  without  a  treaty.  Yet  1  do  not  see  in  the  pending  treaty  any  iuoilill<aiio<i 
even  of  this  domineering  assumption  of  despotic  authority  overour  lisln'ruicn. 
Hence,  if  there  were  n€>  other  reason,  1  should  be  opposed  to  its  rtitifl<'atiou. 
Very  respeclfi:lly, 

JAlMr.S  GIFFORD. 

This  is  not  a  solitary  instancci.  In  the  Secretary  of  State's  list  of 
American  vessels  seized,  retained,  or  warned  otf  fiDin  Cunaditin  ports 
dtnin;;  \SS(i  tliore  are  sixteen  vesi.ds  in  a  sinj;;!^  year  warned  off  when 
in  port  for  shelter.  Professor  Baivd'sfiditional  list  contains  a  con.sider- 
able  additional  nnnilMr.     (See  Appendi.x  L. ) 

1  may  as  well  complete  what  1  have  to  say  here  of  Mr.  Secretary 
Baynrd's  sinj^nlar  delusion,  that  if  yon  ttike  the  prievanccs  complained 
of,  one  by  one,  you  will  find  the  treaty  provides  aKalnst  their  recur- 
rence. Here  is  another  most  irritatinj?  annoyance  which  ha.'»  esoa])ed 
his  attention,  for  which  he  has  secured  for  us  no  renifdy  whatever. 

Pu()VlN(^fryrowN,  Mash.,  ^f^nJ  21.  !H88. 

Dir.AH  Sm:  Kepresentative  U.  T.  Davis,  having  Informed  mo  of  your  iiitun- 
tton  to  address  the  .Seiiafo  on  the  merits  of  Iho  fisheries  treaty,  I  venture  to 
call  yoiir  attention  to  two  matters  uf  importance  involved,  wliiuh  I  havo  not 
seen  elsewhere  discussed. 

One  is  the  seizure  and  line  of  vessels  for  the  landing  of  one  or  more  of  their 
«rews  prior  to  reporting  tlie  vessel  at  the  ousiiun-house,  and  the  other  is  the  or- 


42 

fl'-ring  (>urfi«hing  vessels  to  sea,  regardloss  of  the  judgment  of  the  master  as  ta 
the  utiHiiitableiiess  of  llie  w«alli«!r  or  c<!:i''ilion  of  the  vcMsel. 

As  to  the  former,  provision  is  iiiiid*!  in  t!io  treaty,  under  article  10,  for  continu- 
jinoe  cf  tills  unwarrantAljlc  and  uniioyinK  practice.  This  article  provides  that 
■' vessfl.s  remaining  more  than  twenty-four  hours  *  •  *  or  conimimicatinp: 
with  tijo  shore,"  etc.,  m'.ist  roport  at  the  custom-honse,  thereby  furnishing  a 
basis  for  perpetuatinfj  the  sei/ures  and  fines  complained  of. 

Us  adoption  by  the  Senate  woidd  be  an  indoif'<'in<ent  not  only  of  the  mulcting 
«)tir  vessels  in  the  sum  of  S2IK),  but  also  of  imposinfj  a  restriction  elsewhere  un- 
known in  our  commercial  relations.  The  mere  landing  of  a  vessel'sorew,  they 
taking;  rn  k  ■  :)ds  nor  effects  from  tlie  vessel,  is  not  even  in  ('anada  ma<Je  an  o(- 
fense,  except  when  done  by  American  Usliermcn ;  this  prohibition  toland  prior 
to  -eporlinj^  is  notaiii)lied  to  Donnnion  tlshin^;,  coasting,  nor  merchant  vessels, 
as  you  will  perceive  by  inclosed  aHldavit  of  ("apt.  .John  Newman,  an  intelli- 
gent and  truthful  gentleman.  His  statement  can  be  verified  by  any  number  of 
American  masters  who  frequented  Dominion  i)ort8  prior  to  188.5.  Crews  from 
foreign  countries  having  been  certified  l)y  local  health  officers  as  exempt  from 
contasfious  diseases  are  iree  to  land  at  any  port  in  the  United  States  where  I  liey 
may  happen  to  enter.  I  am  informed  that  this  Ic  the  practice  at  Liverpool, 
Kngland,  and  at  all  other  foreign  pi'  :s. 

Schooners  Pearl  Nelson,  of  I'rovi.i  etown,  and  Everett  Stetle,  of  Gloucester, 
were  seized  and  fined  ?f'2(X)  each,  under  circumstances  thatexiiibit  the  wanton- 
ness and  arbitrary  nature  of  the  transactions,  as  may  bo  seen  on  pages  5i  and  55- 
of  Executive  OociunentNo.  19,  Decemher  8,  I8«ii.  The  authorities  at  Ottawa  at- 
tempted to  justify  these  seizures  by  citing  the  provisions  of  scitixiis  25  and  ISO, 
46  Victoria, chapter  12,  quoted  in  said  Kxeoutive  Document  No.  19. 

I  think,  however,  you  will  agree  with  me  that  there  is  nota  sentence  or  word, 
even  by  implication,  in  either  of  those  citations  that  makes  the  landiiig  of  a  ves- 
sel's crew  prior  to  reporting  a  violation  of  law.    The  continirance  of  seizures, 
therefore,  of  our  vessels  on  the  pretext  indicated  ought  not  to  be  as-sented  to. 
Very  respectfully, 

JAMES  GIFFOKD. 

Tersonally  appeared  before  me,  .James  OitTord.  a  notary  public,  at  the  jjortof 
Provincetown,  in  the  State  of  ^Slassachu setts,  this  l:;th  day  of  March,  18X7,  John 
Newman,  of  Shediac,  in  the  Province  of  .Vcw  Hrunswick  '''.^minion  of  Camxda, 
who,  being  by  me  duly  sworn,  deposes  and  says  that  '.e  lias  been  master  of  ves- 
sels belonging  to  pf)rts  in  said  D<. minion  f.>r  t<'U  yoi..s  last  past;  that  during 
that  period  he  has  frequently  reported  and  entered  the  vessels  under  his  com- 
nuvnd  at  numerous  customs-houses  in  such  ports,  but  that  in  no  instance  has  ho 
been  required  by  a  customs  otticer  therein  to  make  report  or  etitryof  iiis  vessel 
and  cargo  prior  to  allowing  his  ore w  to  hn\d:  tluit  it  has  been  his  invarial)le 
practice  for  his  crews  to  land  at  any  port  in  I  he  Dominion  of  Cana<la  on  arrival 
of  his  vessel,  without  question  of  any  customs  otfiecr  as  to  whether  or  not  he 
had  previously  reported  to  the  customs  olfice  ;  that  the  last  port  at  which  he  thus 
permitted  his  crew  to  land  was  at  Hichibucto,  New  Itrunswiek;  that  during 
the  period  named  he  never  heard  from  a  customs  oftlcer,  or  other  prrson  in 
the  aforesaid  Dominion,  he  had  violated  any  revenue  law  or  customs  rcguk.- 
lion  by  so  doiug. 

JOHN  NEWMAN. 

[seal.]  JAMES  GIFFOUD, 

,  Notary  Piiblie. 

The  ciinscs  of  Rrievince  in  these  cases  may  be  classifietl,  as  followa  : 

1,  Indignity  .sufl'ered  by  detention  and  sear(;h  and  by  being  warned 
off. 

2.  The  ordering  of  vessels  out  of  harbors  when  Canadian  ofBciuIs 
deem  there  is  no  necessity  for  shelter.  { 

M.  Onerous  cnstotns  hiws  and  tlie  exaction  ot  fees  and  dues. 

4.  Kefii.-ial  to  sell  necessary  provisions  and  supplies. 

5.  Unjust  local  laws  rej?ulating  seizures  and  trials. 

These  causes  are  not  removed  by  the  treaty.  On  the  contrary  the 
following  causes'lbr  dissatisfaction  on  the  part  of  tl  »■  American  lisher- 
men,  aiul  opporttinities  Jor  uurea.sonable  conduct  on  the  part  of  the 
Canadian  authorities  would  still  e.xist  under  the  pending  treaty. 

1.  Canadians  could  search  all  American  vessels  within  the  3-raile 
limit;  could  iiuestion  the  masters  on  oath;  couhl  seize  their  vessels  on 
a  mere  pretext,  and  could  put  them  to  the  proof  of  the  illegality  of  the 
seizure. 


I  It!  '  I: 


43 


2.  The  Canarlians  could  order  away  vessels  that  had  lakeu  refuge  in 
their  ports  whenever  they  cared  to  do  so. 

3.  The  right  to  unload  and  transship  is  incident  only  to  repairs. 

4.  The  only  exemption  given  I'roni  ])urdensonie  harl)or  and  customs 
laws  is  in  case  ol"  shelter,  or  repairs,  or  the  purchase  of  wood  or  water 
in  a  place  not  a  i)ort  of  entry. 

5.  Provisions  um  he  purchased  only  for  the  homeward  voyage. 

6.  Only  by  Iree  fish  can  Amerii^ans  purchase  commercial  privileges. 

7.  All  the  iujusticr  of  the  lishing  laws  remains.  The  hurdeu  of 
proof  is  still  on  the  defendant,  and  he  is  denied  his  remedy  for  illegal 
seizures. 

Mr.  I'utnara  says  in  his  defense  of  the  treaty  that — 

The  wonts  "  preparing  toflHh,"  in  stiitute  38  George  III,  have  been  the  cause 
of  uiany  troubles,  utid  are  susceptible  of  a  variety  of  coiiHtruetions. 

But  they  are  now  introduced  into  the  treaty  itself,  which  consents 
that  our  vessels  may  be  condemned,  the  penalty  not  to  exceed  the  for- 
feiture of  the  entire  ship  and  its  contents,  for  preparing  to  tish. 

Mr.  GRAY.      "  Preparing  to  fish  therein." 

Mr.  HOAR.  Yes;  "  preparing  to  lish  therein."  I  hope  the  Senator 
will  not  interrupt  me  at  this  jjoint.  What  I  say  is  that  ilie  words  of 
the  Canadian  statute  and  the  words  of  the  treaty  are  identical,  and  I 
am  talking  al)out  Mr.  Bayard's  claim,  that  none  of  tlie  prior  dilliculties 
will  be  heard  of  again  if  this  treaty  takes  efi'ect,  and  Mr.  Putnanv  say^ 
that  the  words ' '  preparing  to  fish ' '  have  been  the  cause  of  mai^itroubles, 
and  are  susceptible  of  a  variety  of  constructions. 

Mr.  GRAY.  The  Senator  will  allow  ine  to  suggest  to  him  that  even 
though  the  Canadian  statute  undertakes  to  punish  by  forfeiture  of  the 
vessel  the  preparing  to  fish  by  an  American  vessel  in  Canadian  waters, 
whether  that  fishing  for  which  they  are  preparing  is  within  the  in- 
hibited territory  or  without  it,  the  treaty  confines  the  right  of  punish- 
ing for  preparing  to  fish  within,  not  preparing  to  fish  without. 

Mr.  HO  AH.     I  do  not  so  understand  it. 

Mr.  GRAY.     That  is  a  very  important  point. 

Mr.  lIOAlv.  The  word  "therein"  may  as  well  be  claimed  to  qualify 
the  words  "preparing to  fish"  as  to  qualify  the  word  "fish."'  But  I 
do  not  want  to  dwell  oi»  that.     That  is  not  my  point. 

Mr.  GRAY.     It  only  sliows  that  there  is  an  im[)()rtant  difference. 

Mr.  HOAR.  I  atn  talking  about  the  (luestion  whether  this  treaty 
will  remove  the  ciiuse  of  trouble,  and  1  say  that  your  treaty  which  in- 
troduces this  language  is  just  as  liable  to  cause  the  troubles  wliich 
my  honorable  friend  now  suggests  arose  under  the  old  Canadian  statute. 

Mr.  GRAY.  How  can  it,  may  I  ask- the  Senator  from  Massachusetts, 
when  the  old  difliculty  .vas  that  an  American  fishing  vessel  that  went 
within  the  3-mile  limit  and  was  charged  with  preparing  to  fish  within 
that  limit  in  waters  outside  of  it  waswitiiin  the  purview  of  the  Cana- 
dian law,  while  under  this  treaty  it  is  expressly  stipulated  that  the  only 
offense  for  which  tlie  vessel  can  be  seized  ia  preparing  within  any 
Canadian  waters  to  fish  therein? 

Mr.  HOA  R.  The  treaty  does  not  say  so.  The  treaty  saya  the  entire 
vessel  and  its  contents  maybe  condemned  if  found  fishing  or  prej»aring 
to  fish  therein,  and  Canada  will  claim  uncjuesfionably,  no  ni;itter  where 

Jrou  are  going  to  lish,  if  you  are  preparing  to  fish  you  are  violating  her 
aw. 

Mr.  GRAY.  That  ia  a  very  flat  contradiction.  I  only  refer  to  the 
language  of  the  treaty. 


IM 


)i 


'I'M 


44 

Mr.  110 AK.  I  do  not  wuh  to  be  at  all  discourteous  to  the  Senator, 
but  I  ihiuk  the  Senator  misunderstands  the  treaty. 

Mr.  aUAY.     That  may  be. 

Mr.  IIOAU.  If  the  Senator  and  I  dififer,  Canada  and  the  United 
States  may  well  differ,  and  if  Canada  and  the  United  States  differ,  you 
have  not  got  rid  of  your  trouble. 

Theae  words  not  only  bind  our  Government  to  permit  their  citizens 
to  be  searched  or  puninhed  for  no  offense,  but  only  when  the  Canadian 
iinthorities  shall  thinktheyare  preparing  to  commit  one;  but  they  flatly 
contradict  Mr.  Bayard's  allcfiation  that  the  recurrence  of  past  causes 
of  trouble  is  prevented  fo'    lie  future. 

Mr.  Putnam  goes  on  to  j  that  there  were  four  subjects  of  dispute 
iictween  185G  and  1884: 

1.  Great  bays. 

2.  The  headland  thtory. 

3.  Whether  the  jirovincial  officcis  would  drive  out  our  vessels  from 
provincial  bays  and  harbors  when,  in  the. judgment  of  the  authorities, 
they  did  not  in  l"act  need  shelter  or  repairs. 

4.  The  vexatious  legislation  which  denies  our  citizens  remedy  in  the 
case  of  transgression  and  the  like. 

I  have  shown  that  under  the  treaty  there  will  be  more  occasion  for 
trouble  ihan  before.  The  tiiirii  eaii-e  of  Lrouble  the  treaty  does  not 
touch.     The  fourth  I  shall  show  in  a  moment  it  helps  very  slightly. 

Mr.  GKAV.     Will  the.  Senator  from  M;u>sacliinutt>^  aUovy  me?^ 

The  PR  ICSIDENT  pro  lvmpov<:.  I  oca  the  Senator  from  Massachusetta 
yield  to  the  iSeuaior  from  Delaware? 

Mr.  HOAR.     Certiiinly. 

Mr.  GRAY.  Let  me  call  the  Senators  attention  to  the  language  of 
Aiticle  XIV  of  the  treaty?  I  understood  the  Senator  from  Colorado 
[Mr.  Tkm.ekJ  tosay  in  hisseattiiat  there  was  no  such  language  in  the 
treaty.  lu  stipulating  what  acts  may  be  puuished  by  the  Canadian 
law,  Article  XIV  says: 

And  for  prepariiiR  in  such  waters— 

That  is  in  Canadian  waters — 

to  unlawfully  flnli  tlierein,  penalties  bliall  bo  flxcd  Jjjr  the  court,  not  to  exceed 

lliuse  k>r  unlawl'ully  fi^hiIlK• 

That  is  the  language  in  Article  XIV  of  this  treaty,  and  I  submit  to 
the  Senator  and  to  the  Senate  that  it  does  not  seem  susceptible  ol  any 
other  construction  than  that  which  I  have  given  it. 

Mr.  HOAR.  Mr.  President,  I  tliink  the  Senator  from  Delaware  is 
right  as  to  the  words  '"and  for  preparing  in  such  waters  to  unlawfully 
(ish  therein;"  but  my  point  must  remain,  however,  that  the  offense  of 
prepii ration  to  fish  is  still  lelt  subject  to  the  question  of  what  is  prepa- 
ration to  Ilsh. 

I  do  not  lind  in  these  two  articles  or  anywhere  in  the  treaty  any  jus- 
tification for  the  President's  claim  that  "it  is  framed  in  a  spirit  of  lib- 
eral e(iaity  and  reciproail  benelits,"  or  that  "it  will  he  satisfactory  to 
those  of  our  (ishermen  engi;"ed  in  the  deep  sew' fisheries, "  or  that  it 
gives  the  "privilege  on  all  occasions  of  purchasing  such  casual  and 
needlnl  provisions  and  supplies  as  are  ordinarily  granted  to  trading 
vessels." 

On  the  ctmtrary,  this  instrument  adopts  and  recognizes  to  the  fullest 
extent  tho  pretension  tliat  the  rights  of  our  fishing  vessels  are  measured 
by  the  convention  of  18H,  unaffected  i)y  the  subsequent  changes  in 
the  customs  of  nations  or  thq,  commercial  arrangemeuts  of  1830.     It 


45 


declares  and  admits  in  substance  that  because  tlit-y  were  favorites  il" 
the  law  of  natioua  then  they  are  under  its  ban  now;  bei;ause  they 
were  better  off  than  all  other  men  then,  tiie  only  Americans  not  out- 
lawed in  British  ports  on  this  continent,  they  are  to  be  worse  oft"  than 
all  mankind  now. 

There  is  nothing  in  this  instrument  which  permits  an  American  fish- 
erman to  go  into  a  Canadian  port,  harbor,  or  bay  lor  any  purpose  not 
set  forth  in  the  treaty  of  1818. 

Provided,  however — 

Says  that  treaty — 

that  the  American  fishermen  shall  bo  admitted  to  enter  such  bays  or  hnriiors 
for  tlie  purpose  of  slieller  and  repairing  iluinag^s  therein,  of  purcliasiny;  wood, 
and  of  obtaining  water,  and  for  no  otlier  purpose  wliatever. 

That  treaty,  realTirmed  in  this  ane  by  a  hundred  implications,  opens 
the  only  narrow  and  inhospitable  doorway  by  which  the  American  fish- 
erman can  get  in.  If  he  has  gone  in  for  shelter,  under  stress  of  weather 
or  other  casualty,  he  can  then  and  then  only — 

Unload,  reload,  transship,  or  sell  liis  fish,  subject  to  customs  reptdntion,  ifjt  be 
necessary  as  an  incident  to  repairs,  and  may  replenish  outfit'^,  provisions,  or 
Bupplies  damaged  or  lost  by  disaster. 

It  is  then  orly  that  he  can  get  Aicilities  in  case  of  death  or  sicliness, 
and  then  only  that  he  can  get  supplies  for  his  homeward  voyage. 

They  talk  about  the  matter  of  compulsory  pilotage  and  harbor  dues. 
Massachusetts  and  Maine  do  not  require  Canadian  fishing  ves,sels  to 
tiike  a  pilot.  Their  skippers  know  the  coast  aa  well  as  any  pilot. 
Tliey  have  no  passengers.  Theii  cargo  is  their  own  property.  Can- 
ada can  only  maintain  the  requirement  of  compulsory  pilotage  for  pur- 
poses of  vexation  and  not  for  purposes  of  public  security.  She  does 
not  require  it  of  her  own  fishermen.  The  dollar-and-a-half  harbor  due 
i>^  unimportant  except  an  a  vexation.  Sir  Charles  Tupper  very  Irankly 
says  in  his  speech  as  to  this  concession: 

The  fact  la  that  ftlthoufjh  there  appears  to  lie  a  considerable  concession  in 
that,  it  doe«  not  amount  to  tuuuti. 

He  had  just  said  substantially  the  same  thing  as  to  pilotage: 

That  the  play  was  not  worth  the  candle. 

He  says  also  in  regard  to  the  concessions  of  Article  XI,  on  which  the 

President  lays  such  stress,  that  the  transshipment  concession  was  a  wise 

and  judicious  concessiou  to  make.     He  asks  what  would  be  thought  of 

Canada  if  she  denied  it.     He  says  thatj — 

Tn  making  it  we  were  only  acting  from  the  dictates  of  humanity  nnd  from  ft 
due  regard  to  tlio  credit  and  reputation  of  our  country  all  over  the  world. 

He  also  clearly  implies  that  he  deems  the  President's  notion  that  the 
privileges  of  deep-sea  fishermen  are  ex  tended  by  the  last  clause  of  Article 
XI  altogether  wrong,  and  tliut  it  applies  only  to  vessels  coming  in  under 
stress  of  weather  and  for  the  homeward  voyage.  This  is  also  allirmed 
by  the  representatives  of  the  government  in  the  debates  in  the  Cana- 
dian senate.  Indeed  Article  XV  shows  that  until  fish  is  made  free  ia 
the  United  States  her  vessels  can  enter  only  for  the  purposes  specified 
in  the  treaty  of  1818. 

As  the  delimitation  articles  absolutely  surrender  what  wa.s  decided  in 
our  favor  in  the  cases  of  the  Washington  and  the  Argns,  so  Article  X 
and  Article  XI V  surrender  what  was  conceded  in  the  Fortune  Kay  mat- 
ter to  the  spirited  diplomacy  of  Mr.  Kvarts.  Article  X  snys  our  fish- 
ermen "shall  conform  to  harbor  regulations  common  to  tlxm  and  the 
fishing  vesselsof  Canada."  Article  XlVsays:  "Foranyother  violation 
of  the  laws  of  Great  Britain,  Canada,  or  Newlbundlaud,  relating  to  the 


m 


46 


i      i:i 


^^    \ 


right  of  fishery  in  such  bays,  creeks,  or  harbors,  penalties  shall  be  fixed 
by  the  coart. ' ' 

They  tried  once  before  to  subject  ua  to  their  Sunday  laws  and  theii 
laws  fixing  a  close  season  and  their  laws  regulating  the  size  of  nets. 
This  was  under  the  treaty  of  1871.  Mr.  Evarts  remonstrated.  Lord 
Kalisbury  asserted  their  right  to  compel  us  to  submit  to  their  laws,  and 
said  the  law  ofiicers  of  the  Crown  had  no  doubt  about  it.  Mr.  Evarta 
tol  1  them  he  should  treat  it  iia  an  abrogation  of  the  trefity,  and  Presi- 
dent Hayes  sent  a  message  to  Congress  advising  the  restoration  of  the 
duty  on  fish.  Great  Britain  instantly  yielded  and  paid  $80,1)00  dam- 
ages. Now  you  would  throw  away  all  this  without  the  slightest 
eqxiivaleut.  jfereafter,  under  your  brilliant  diplomacy,  Great  iiritain 
and  Canada  and  Newfoundland  a-  ■'  to  make  the  laws  under  which  we 
are  to  exercise  our  treaty  rights. 

Mr.  GRAY.  With  the  Senator's  indulgence,  I  want  to  call  his  at- 
tention to  a  fact  that  appears  in  the  correspondence,  which  I  can  not 
lay  my  liands  upon  now,  in  regard  to  the  Fortune  IJay  outrage,  so-called, 
that  Great  Uritain  did  not  yield  the  principle  lor  which  she  contended, 
but  consented  to  pay  an  indemui^^y,  because,  whatever  might  be  her 
right  to  impose  those  laws  upon  American  fishermen,  she  conceded  that 
they  could  not  be  enlbrced  by  a  mob. 

Mr.  HO4K.  That  was  a  distinction  without  a  difference.  Great 
Britain  agreed  for  a  consideration  that  wo  might  go  into  her  bays  to 
catch  fish.  We  went  there  to  catcli  fish,  and  we  violated,  as  she  said, 
her  Sunday  law,  the  law  about  the  close  season,  and  the  law  about  the 
size  of  the  nets.  Mr.  Evarts  remonstrated,  and  Lord  Salisbury  replied 
that  he  bud  consulted  the  law  officers  of  the  Crown,  and  he  and  they 
were  of  ojunion  that  England  had  granted  us  the  right  to  lib  subject 
to  the  rigiit  which  her  dependencies  had — the  right  to  make  their  laws 
to  govern  and  regulate  its  exercise. 

Thereupon  Mr.  Evarts  spoke  with  some  indignation  of  the  doctrine 
that  they  could  take  away  by  legislation  what  they  had  given  us  by 
treaty.  Then  Lord  Salisbury  said  that  while  that  might  not  be  true 
cf  future  legislation,  at  least  of  the  past  legislation  which  existed  at  the 
time  of  the  treaty  it  must  be  true.  Thereupon  Mr.  Evarts  observed 
that  if  they  had  sold  us  a  valuable  fishery  right  without  notifying  us 
that  it  w.as  under  mortgage  or  other  lienor  incumbrance,  it  was  an 
unusual  transaction.  Lord  Salisbury  replied  in  substance  that  he  did 
not  desire  to  hear  anything  more  about  the  subject.  Then  Mr.  Evarta 
recommended  Presitient  Hayes  to  send  a  message  to  Congress  inviting 
the  revocation  of  the  treaty  and  treating  the  English  contention  as  a 
rejection  of  the  treaty.  Then  Sir  Edward  Thornton  canje  to  Mr.  Evarts 
in  a  day  after  the  thing  was  done  and  wanted  to  know  why  ho  did  not 
give  notice  of  this  step.  Mr.  Evaits  said  he  did  not  consider  himsell 
bound  to  doit,  and  Sir  Edward  Thornton  then  inquired  of  Mr.  Evarta 
if  he  was  willing  further  to  treat  it  as  an  open  question,  England  hav- 
ing said  she  would  not.  Mr.  Evarts  said  certainly.  Thereupon  Eng- 
landcame  in  and  paid  $30,000  damages,  and  wehavenot  heard  of  that 
English  pretension  from  that  day  to  this. 

Mr.  GliAY.     Upon  the  ground  I  have  stated. 

Mr.  HOAR.  If  the  Senator  thinks  that  is  the  ground  to  be  got  out 
of  it,  all  right,  that  is  the  story. 

I  will  not  dwell  upon  Article  XIT,  which,  literally  construed,  gives 
to  Canada  and  Newfoundland  the  same  ownership  in  common  in  the 
waters  of  our  whole  Atlantic  coast  which  the  valor  of  our  fathers  ac- 
quired, and  which  were  acknowledged  in  1783  and  in  1818  in  the  water* 


of  Canada  and  Xowfoundlainl  so  far  as  (luy  aro  nsirved  or  secured  liy 
this  treaty.  Tlie  iiritisb  arminient  is  niiieh  .stnmjier,  in  niyjudjinient, 
for  this  construction  of  Article  XII  t)ian  for  llie  eluiiui  to  which  Mr. 
Bayard  and  liis  associates  have  so  tamely  submitted. 

Nor  will  I  dwell  on  the  thirteenth  article,  re^iarded  by  our  fisherineu 
as  so  obnoxious  and  dejj;r5vding.  It  recjuires  every  tishing  vessel  of  the 
United  .States,  whether  ahe  means  to  jfo  near  Canada  or  not,  (o  wear  a 
number  conspicuously  exhibited  on  each  bow,  a  requirement  not  ap- 
plied to  England's  own  tisheriuen,  strongly  suggestive  of  tickets  of  leave 
and  prison  rcuulatious. 

The  lourteenth  article  is  etjually  remarkable  for  what  it  declares 
Canada  shall  not  do  hereafter,  and  tor  what  it  impliedly  consents  Canada 
may  hereafter  continue  to  do.  Nobody,  1  suppose,  expects  that  until 
w^e  grant  free  lish,  and  free  trade  to  Canadian  products,  there  will  be 
any  change  in  the  spirit,  temper,  ]»olicy,  or  purpose  of  Canada.  What 
we  have  to  complain  of  is  that  Canada  has  so  framed  her  customs  laws 
and  her  fishing  laws  as  to  subject  our  vessels  to  a  series  of  .seizures, 
cnnfisc4ition.s,  j)onalties,  interruption.s,  and  outrages.  This  malice  she 
has  deliberately  enacted  into  law.  Any  of  twenty  olUcials,  some  of 
them  of  the  pettiest  order,  mayseizean  American  shipand  cargo.  The 
burden  is  put  upon  the  ownerof  the  vessel  toshow  that  the  seizure  was 
illegal.  If  the  .ocal  judge  shall  certify  there  was  probable  cause  for 
the  seizure,  we  gt  '^  no  costs,  and  only  4  cents  damages.  This  is  the  ex- 
isting Canadian  law,  untouched,  uni'epoaled,  un.itfected  by  this  treaty. 

Jilxtracts  from  the  Canadian  statute  respecting  fishing  by  foreign 
vessels  are  given  in  the  appendix  to  the.se  remarks  (M). 
^t  will  be  seen  that  by  these  laws  any  petty  customs  or  naval  officer 
orjustice  of  the  peace  may  seize  an  American  shipand  cargo,  although 
that  ship  may  be  in  the  exercise  of  its  rights  and  outside  the  ;5-milo 
line;  may  t;ikc  it  to  any  port  in  Canada;  may  put  it  on  trial  wherever 
he  please  to  detain  it;  may  compel  it  to  prove  its  innocence;  shall  be 
exempted  from  paying  either  damages  or  costs,  if  the  court  certify  there 
was  probable  cause  for  seizure;  may  convict  it  or  establish  probable 
c^use  on  the  evidence  of  the  Canadian  sailors,  who  may  receive  three- 
fourths  of  the  sura  for  which  the  ship  and  cargo  are  ^old,  if  condemned ; 
and  that  the  suit  by  the  owner  can  only  be  brought  one  month  after 
notiee  left  at  the  lastaud  usual  i)lace  of  alxxle  of  the  captor,  which  may 
be  in  Great  Ihitaiu ;  and  can  not  be  brought  at  all  more  than  three  months 
after  the  seizure;  so  that  there  are  only  two  months  in  all  within  which 
such  suit  may  be  brought,  even  if  the  owner  die,  or  be  sick,  or  insane, 
or  be  at  a  distance. 

You  have  full  knowledge  of  thciie  things.  You  have  complained  of 
them.  You  have  declared  that  tliey  were  put  by  Canada  on  her  stat- 
ute-book to  ha'"as3  your  fishermen  and  drive  them  to  madness.  You 
have  denounced  them  as  an  outrage.  And  now,  when  you  make  your 
treaty,  ^'ou  put  in  it  a  few  of  the  commonplaces  of  common  right, 
and  leave  these  outrages  to  continue.^  Worse  than  this.  Y'ou  declare 
that  this  treaty  contains  all  that  you  can  reasonably  ask.  You  not 
only  leave  this  Canadian  legislation  on  her  alatute-book,  but  the  Presi- 
dent and  his  Se(;retary  indorse  it,  and  estop  us,  so  far  as  they  can, 
from  ever  complaining  of  it  again.  Y''ou  have  contented  yourself  with 
so  much.  As  to  the  rest,  you  must  forever  after  hold  your  peice. 
This  is  what  you  call  concili.ition. 

CoHciliato?    It  jest  means  lie  kicked. 
No  motter  how  tliey  pliras«  an'  tone  it; 


It  means  tliet  we're  t^set  down  lit^ked, 
Thet  we're  poor  »hotes  an'  tlad  to  own  it. 


ij: 
iii 


n    < 


n 


1 


li 


m 


48 

They  have  put  into  Article  XIV  a  few  stipxilatiotif  for  those  common 
decencies  of  a  fair  trial,  to  which  all  mankind  are  entitled  as  of  com- 
mon right.  But  they  accompany  even  thtise  with  the  provision  that  the 
penalty  for  nulawfnily  lishinsi,  however  innocent  or  accidental,  however 
the  skipper  nuiy  have  mistaken  his  position,  or  however  donhtful  or  con- 
flicting; the  evidence,  may  extend  to  the  forfeiture  of  the  vessel  and 
everytliin^  on  boird.  The  penalty  for  preparinji;  U>  tish  may  he-fixed 
by  the  court  and  shall  he  no  sretiter  than  (or  fishing.  The  .judnnienb 
of  forfeiture  (no  lesser  judgment)  shall  be  reviewed  by  the^overnor- 
general.  But  if  he  approve  the  finding,  it  is  quite  doubtful  if  there  b© 
power  vested  in  him  to  lesson  the  penalty.  The  anrepealed  Canadian 
statute  still  makes  the  forfeiture  for  unlawful  fishing  alwolute  in  all 
cases,     lint  the  second  clause  of  Article  XIV  provides — 

That  tlie  proceedings  shall  be  autnmary  and  inexpensive  as  prsic- 
tivable; 

The  trial  shall  be  at  the  place  of  detention  (not  the  place  of  seizure 
or  near  it); 

Security  for  costs  shall  not  he  required  except  when  hail  is  ofTered, 
(They  will  have  in  their  possession  the  whole  ship  and  cargo); 

KeaMonable  bail  shall  be  ace  'pted; 

There  shall  be  proper  appeals; 

These  shall  be  avaiUble  to  the  defense  only,  (That  is,  the  defend- 
ant shall  not  be  twice  put  in  Jeopardy). 

I  should  like  to  ask  Senators  on  the  other  side  if  there  be  one  of 
these  provisions,  which  to  deny  to  a  foreign  sailor  in  her  ports,  witliont 
a  treaty,  in  this  close  of  the  nineteenth  century,  would  not  make  Can- 
ada a'»itench  in  the  nostrils  of  mankind. 

There  is  not  one  of  them  that  has  been  denied  in  a  United  States 
court  since  the  country  was  settled.  If  the  least  of  these  privileges 
were  denied  to  a  British  ship-owner  in  the  courts  of  Boston  we  shonld 
hear  from  the  Britisli  foreign  olUce;  or  rather,  we  should  not  wait  to 
hear  from  the  British  foreign  oflice;  we  should  remedy  the  grievance 
under  the  prompt  and  eager  stimulant  of  our  own  public  opinion. 

It  is  quite  significant  that  the  British  plenipotentiaries  did  not  ask 
us  to  put  into  the  treaty  any  stipulation  that  we  would  give  them  the 
like'jnstice  in  our  courts.  Nobody  ever  dreamed  that  it  was  possible 
for  the  United  States  to  refuse  to  a  foreigner  in  our  ports  as  inexpensive 
u  trial  lis  practicable,  a  trial  in  the  vicinage,  exemption  from  security 
for  costs  when  we  hold  his  property,  reasonable  bail,  and  proper  ap- 
peals. Every  Senator  on  the  other  side  of  the  Chaml)er  would  deem 
it  a  national  insult  to  ask  us  for  a  promise  in  a  treaty  to  observe  the 
commcm  decencies  of  judicial  proceedings. 

Mr.  President,  iis  I  wis  -saying  just  now,  if  we  were  to  treat  ten 
British  ships  in  Boston  a^s  they  have  treat*  d  a  hundred  in  Canada,  we 
should  hear  an  expression  of  anger  from  Downing  street  to  which  th  it 
which  followed  the  seizure  of  Mason  and  Slidell  would  be  tame.  .John 
Ball  would  not  have  much  to  say  about  postpcniement  to  some  future 
time  of  a  demand  for  redress.  How  long  do  you  think  he  would  submit 
to  the  law  which  gave  4  cents  costs  and  20  cent^flne  as  thf  remedy  for 
the  illegal  seizure  of  a  vessel  and  cargo  and  put  the  burdetj  of  proof 
on  the  party  whose  vessel  was  taken  from  him  to  show  that  the  seizure 
was  illegal  ? 

Hear  what  Chief-.Tustice  Cockburn  in  his  work  on  Nationality  laya 
down  as  the  law  of  nations,  recognized  in  Great  Britain: 

In  respect  of  pcrsoiipl  rights,  the  alien,  so  loiif^  as  he  remaitu  on  British  soil, 
(•  in  the  same  position  as  tlxe  Queen's  suljjcois.     The  courts  of  this  country 


49 

»re  open  to  htm  as  agwinst  foreigners  in  re«ipect  of  wroiiKB  for  cauies  of  action 
arisiii);  within  ttie  jurisdiolion,  tmd  in  reSDcet  of  breiicli  of  contract  for  causes  of 
action  arising,  eitltnr  in  tliis  country  or  »broiv<l,  iis  ag'^inst  tlie  Briti.sli  subjects, 
In  re8p<!ct  of  any  cause  of  action  wlieresoevelh  arisintj. — Oockhurn  on  ^atioivalily, 
page  140. 

This  matter  was  well  summed  up  almost  thirty  years  ago  by  a  very 

wise  youns?  writer  on  international  law,  one  Hosea  Biglow.     I  wish 

h.'  had  a  single  spark  of  his  ancient  spirit  ftow: 

,  Ef  I  turned  mad  dogs  loose,  John, 

On  your  front  parlor  stairs. 
Would  it  jest  meet  your  views,  John, 

To  wait  an'  sue  tlieir  heirs? 
Olo  Uncle  ft.,  sez  he,  "  I  tfucss, 
I  on'v  KU09S,"  sez  he, 
"Thet  ef  Vuttel  on  his  toes  fell 

'Twould  kind  of  rile  J.  B.,  » 

As  well  as  you  and  ine  " 

Who  made  the  law  thet  hurts,  John, 
IleadH  I  win,  ditto  tails? 
•*  J.  B."  was  on  his  xhiris,  .John, 
Unless  my  memory  fails. 
Ole  Uncle  S.,  says  he,  "  1  guess, 
(I  am  good  at  that),"  sez  he, 
"Tliat  sauce  for  goose  ain't  jest  the  Juioa 
For  ganders  with  J.  B., 
No  more  then  you  and  me." 

When  your  rights  was  our  wrongs,  John, 
•  You  didn't  stop  for  fuss, 

Britanny's  trident  prongs,  John, 

Was  good  'nough  law  for  us. 
Ole  Uncle  S.,  sez  he,  "  I  guess. 

Though  pliizic  'a  good,"  sez  he, 
"  It  doe.sn't  foller  that  lie  can  swaller 

Prescriptions  signed  J.  B. 

tut  up  by  you  and  me." 

We  own  the  ocean,  tu,  John ; 

You  mustn't  take  it  hard 
Ef  we  can't  think  with  you,  John, 

It 's  jest  your  wwn  back  yard. 
Ole  Uncle  S.,  sez  he,  "  1  guess, 

Ef  that's  his  claim,"  sez  he, 
"Tlie  fencin'  stuff '11  cost  enough 

To  bust  up  friend  J.  B,, 

As  well  as  you  and  me." 

I  have  not  time  to  go  into  the  detail  of  the  Canadian  onstoras  laws. 
They  will  be  found  in  Senate  Docnnient  No.  113,  pages  '.i\H,  401. 

The  fifteenth  article  is  to  take  eftect  when  we  remove  the  duty  from 
fish-oil,  wh.ile-oil,  seal-oil,  and  fish  of  all  kinds.  We  are  to  have  in 
exchange  fur  that  concession  licenses  to  enter  the  Atlantic  ports,  bays, 
and  harbors  of  Canada  and  Newfoundland — 

To  buy  provisions,  bait,  ice,  seines,  lines,  .supplies,  and  outQts. 

To  transship  catch. 

To  ship  crews. 

Mr.  I'resident,  it  is  difTicult  to  overstate  the  absurdity  of  this  pro- 
Tision,  even  if  it  were  not  a  humiliation  to  be  called  on  to  make  a  con- 
ditional bargain  at  all,  under  the  circumstiinces. 

We  are  to  remit  the  duties  on  those  articles  to  all  Baitish  subjects. 
It  is  no  matter  where  they  are  caught.  It  is  enough  if  British  subjects 
brint;  them  \i<  and  they  are  the  produce  of  fisheries  carried  on  by  the 
fishermen  of  Canada,  Newfoundland,  and  Labra<lor.  Our  duties  on 
fish  brought  from  Canada  and  Newfoundland  alcne  in  the  year  end- 
ing June  30,  188fi,  were  $297,028.05.     All  our  dities  on  fish  for  the 

HOAB 4 


'  I 


.W 


50 


l-»1 


jj 

•  !  i 

1 

V 


bame  year  were  $502,287.54;  in  1887  they  were  $611,937.69.  Thia 
chaiiKti  in  oin-  law  will  of  conrse  extend  to  all  mankind,  for  British 
subjects  will  import  all  our  tish  that  we  do  not  take  ourselves,  if  it  ap- 
plies only  to  theiM. 

Now,  this  $600,000  worth  of  duties  we  give  up  for  what  Canada  in 
the  three  years  after  the  duty  of  18i')4  was  abrogated  sold  to  us,  to- 
gether with  the  ri}?ht  to  fish  everywhere  in  her  v,dters  for  50  cents  a 
ton  the  first  year,  $1  the  second,  and  $'-J  the  third.  The  last  year  our 
fishermen  would  not  take  the  licenses.  Our  fishery  tonnage  in  1886 
wa8  70,4.S7  tons.  At  $1  a  ton  she  would  have  sold  to  us  all  these 
rights  and  full  fishing  rights  also  for  |70, 000.  We  now  give  up  the 
$600,000  merely  for  the  privilege  to  buy  bait  and  supplies. 

But  further.  The  treaty  of  1871  gave  ns  the  full  right  to  take  fish 
everywhere  and  to  land  and  dry  fish  everywhere  in  Quebec,  Nova 
Scotia,  Prince  Edward  island,  the  Magdalen  Lslauds,  and  all  adjacent 
islands.  lu  return  we  gave  them  the  right  to  admit  duty  free  fish-oil 
and  fish  (not  whale-oil)  being  the  produce  of  the  Dominion  of  Canada 
and  I'rince  Edsvard  Island. 

Now  they  are  to  have  the  right  to  bring  in  the  produce  of  fisheries 
carried  on  by  them,  wheresoever  they  may  be.  We  get  in  exchange  only 
the  right  to  buy  supplies  and  bait,  transship  cargoes,  and  ship  crews. 

It  is  true  that  we  paid  under  the  treaty  of  1871  a  large  sum  of  money 
for  the  privilege.  My  I'rieud  from  Maine  has  spoken  of  the  selection 
of  our  commissioner.  Mr.  iCellogg  had  been  a  man  of  great  ability, 
who  had  filled  conspicuous  public  stations.  It  is  said,  and  it  may  be 
true,  that  bis  mental  vigor  had  become  impaired  by  advanced  age,  or 
some  other  disorder,  without  the  knowledge  of  those  who  appointed  or 
recommended  him.  liut  there  is  nothing  in  the  history  of  the  transac- 
tion which  tends  to  show  that  anything  the  American  commissioner 
did,  or  failed  to  do,  had  or  could  have  had  any  effect  on  the  result. 
The  mistake  was  in  consenting  to  the  selection  of  Mr.  Delfosse  as  um- 
pire. He  was  the  representative  of  Belgium,  a  power  which  England . 
erected  and  which  depended  on  England  for  its  continued  existence. 
His  sovereign  was  the  sou  of  the  brother  of  Qdeen  Victoria's  mother 
and  of  Prince  Albert's  father,  and  was  himself  brother  of  Carlotta, 
wife  of  Maximilian,  whom  we  had  lately  coiupelled  France  to  abandon 
to  his  fate. 

Mr.  D.VWES.     Will  my  colleague  allow  me  a  word  ? 

Mr.  HOAR.     Certainly. 

Mr.  DA. WES.  There  was  no  mistake  in  consenting  to  the  selection 
of  Mr.  Delfo.sse,  for  this  Government  did  not  consent  to  it.  The  pro- 
vision of  tlie  treaty  of  1871  was  that  the  two  powers  should  have  so 
many  days,  mentioned  in  the  treaty,  to  agree  upon  an  umpire.  The 
British  Government  neglected,  if  Ihey  did  not  refuse,  to  meet  the  Gov- 
ernment of  the  United  States  to  make  that  selection.  Upon  frequent 
call  on  the  part  of  the  Government  of  the  United  States  upon  therep- 
resent^itive  of  the  British  Government  to  fulfill  that  provision  of  the 
treaty  of  1871,  they  utterly  neglected  it  until  the  time  for  agreeing 
upon  the  umpire  had  pitssed,  and  uuder  the  stipulations  of  the  treaty 
it  was  left  to  a  foreign  power  to  select  Mr.  Delfosse. 

The  statement  which  1  have  made  here  I  had  from  the  highest  au- 
thority. No  higher  authority  at  the  time  existed  than  that  which 
made  the  statement,  and  it  was  made  at  the  time  of  the  selection  of 
Mr.  Kellogg.  It  was  made  in  my  own  hearing  and  in  the  hearing  of 
my  tliea  colleague. 


; 


51 


Mr.  HOAR.  Mr.  Delfosse's  own  fortune  in  public  life  depenfled  on 
liis  sovereign's  favor.  We  ha<;  already  notified  Great  Hritain  tliat  the 
Ilelgian  minister  would  probably  deem  himself  dimjualitied  by  renaoa 
of  the  peculiar  political  connection  of  liia  government  with  that  of  (ireat 
Britain.  Earl  de  Grey,  chairman  of  the  Briti'sh  commiijsioners  in  nego- 
tiatioK  the  treaty,  had  notitied  us,  when  suggesting;  the  reference  of  the 
fishery  dispute  to  somesoveriimont.  "I  do  not  name  Helgium.  because 
Great  Hritjun  has  treaty  arranj:ement8  with  them  that  might  be  sup- 
posed to  incapacitiite  them." 

Our  mistake  was  not  in  the  nomination  of  Mr.  Kellogg.  It  was  in 
goin;i  on  w  ill)  the  arl)itration  when  Great  Britaiu  refused  to  propose 
any  other  name  but  that  of  Delfosse. 

Hut  alter  the  money  had  been  paid  we  endeavored  to  induce  Great 
Britain  to  give  up  the  bargain  and  keep  the  money.  Canada  abso- 
lutely refused.  8ir  Charles  Tupper  .said  that  "after  that  tr'Nity  had 
been  in  operation  for  ten  years  there  was  not  a  single  pubiie  man  in 
Canada  but  was  ready  to  do  everything  possible  to  maintiiiu  and  to 
continue  that  very  treaty."  Now,  what  wrett-hed  diplomacy  i.s  this, 
when  Canada  bail  shown  her  eagerness  to  give  os  the  whole  freedom  of 
her  sea-fishing  waters,  clear  to  the  land,  and  the  right  to  use  her  sliorcs 
for  drying  fish,  etc.,  as  provided  in  the  treaty  of  1871,  when  she  could 
receive  in  exchange  nothing  but  our  market  for  fish  and  fish-oil  (not 
-whale-oil  nor  seal-bil),  being  the  i)roducts  of  Canada  aud  Prime  Ed- 
ward Island,  to  make  a  bargain  by  which  giving  them  the  right  to 
bring  in  free  the  produce  of  fisheries  carried  on  by  them  anywhere  in 
the  world,  and  add  to  it  whale  oil  and  seal-oil,  aud  getting  nothing  in 
return  but  these  rights  to  buy  bait  aud  supplies,  to  tran.sship  cargoes 
and  crews. 

It  is  true  Sir  Charles  Tupper  says  it  is  impossible  to  overestima!^  the 
advantages  of  enjoying  the  fisheries  that  are  contained  in  the  Juri.sdie- 
tional  waters  of  Canada.  But  rich  as  are  those  advantages,  they  are 
almost  worthless  without  the  American  market.  The  slightest  ref- 
erence to  the  history  of  these  interests,  the  slightest  rocollection  of  the 
conduct  of  Canada  in  the  past,  the  slightest  zeal  and  care  for  the  inter- 
est of  these  American  citisjens,  would  have  got  for  us  much  better  terms 
if  we  were  to  adopt  the  policy  of  the  fitteenth  article.  As  I  have  al- 
ready said,  Mr.  Evarts  brought  Great  Britain  instantly  to  recede  from 
the  position  colonial  government,  foreign  office,  prime  minister,  ciibinct, 
law  oflicers  of  the  Crown  had  taken,  by  proposing  to  abrogate  the  treaty. 

But,  Mr.  President,  I  should  fail  to  do  justice  to  my  own  conviction 
if  I  did  not  say  that  I  hold  it  ignominious  to  undertake  to  make  terras 
for  a  change  in  our  tariff  laws  in  the  face  of  the  behavior  of  Canada  to 
our  fishermen,  which  the  Administration  knows  was  adopted  to  coerce 
us  to  that  very  action. 

Mr.  President,  the  whole  of  this  treaty  recognizes  what  ^7e  strenu- 
ously deny — the  fitness  of  maintaining  a  discrimination  .■.gainst  fisher- 
men. It  turns  their  ancient  privilege  and  exceptional  honor  into  a 
badge  of  disgrace.  It  constantly  afiivms  a  dominion  on  the  part  of 
Canada  over  the  fishing-grounds  which  from  the  beginning  have  l)(;eu 
our  joint  property.  It  establishes  throughout  a  relation  of  control. 
License,  license,  license  is  the  stipulation  at  every  step.  What  we 
claim  as  a  right  they  compel  us  to  accept  and  hold  only  under  their 
license.  Instead  of  a  full,  frank,  free  recognition  of  general  commer- 
cial rights,  everything  we  are  to  have  is  a  privilege,  ( onstantly  to  be 
the  subject  of  dilTerence  and  quarrel  until  the  demands  of  Cauada  are 
Ailly  yielded. 


ill 


Ill 


li   i 


I.  I 


62 

You  will  scarcely  And  a  cliiini  of  the  American  opponents  of  this 
treatj'  tliat  is  not  suppori'd  by  tlio  speechts  oJ"  its  rriends  in  the  Ca- 
uadiiin  Purliainent.  Hir  Charles  Tupper  hegins  by  appealing  to  that 
body  not  to  press  him  unduly  to  show  tlie^reat  advautjtv;e<»f  tlietrejity 
to  Caniula  until  the  Senate  has  acted.  The  particulars  in  which  beha» 
specially  outwitted  Mr.  Huyard  he  keeps  I'or  the  present  in  his  own 
breast.  J>ut  he  admits  in  express  terms  that  the  inshore  fishery  rightn 
of  Canada  are  of  yreat  value;  that  our  markets  are  of  greater  value 
Btill;  that  Great  J^ritain  had  in  practice  abandoned  the  claim  to  exclude 
us  from  great  bays  and  headlands;  that  he  was  not  compelled  by  Great 
Britain  to  yield  any  claim  of  Canada,  but  was  wholly  responsible  fur 
the  treaty  himsell;  that  the  provision  in  regard  to  the  Straits  of  Canso 
is  nothing  new;  that  the  subjecting  lishing  vessels  which  did  not  stay 
twenty-four  hours  to  report  was  not  entorced  against  Canadian  vessels 
there  or  in  the  United  Statt»s;  that  it  ought  to  l)e  abandoned  in  the 
interests  of  good  neighborhood;  that  in  the  matterof  compulsory  pilotage 
the  play  was  not  worth  the  candle;  that  Canadian  fishermen  were 
already  exempt  fron»  it;  that  in  allowing  us  to  transship  cargoes  they 
were  only  doin;;  what  wius  requirei'  '  v  due  regard  for  the  credit  and 
reputtttiriu  of  their  own  country  all  over  the  world;  that  the  license  to 
buy  casual  and  noedlul  supplies  was  a  thing  demanded  in  the  interests 
of  good  uei>ihborh()od ;  that  he  hiis  left  the  penalty  for  unlawfully  fish- 
ing where  he  found  it. 

He  further  adds  that — 

The  I'rosident  and  the  Deinoorallc  party  from  oikI  to  eridof  t\ie  United  Htate» 
declare  this  treiily  a  fair  setlleiiieiil.  •  *  »  VV'c  occupy  tlio  vantiiBC  Rrouiid 
of  haviuff  thene  men,  out  of  tlicir  own  mouths,  declare  that  nothing  lias  l>eei» 
wantins:  on  the  part  of  ihe  Government  of  Her  Majesty  to  place  this  q'leatioD 
on  a  fair  and  equitable  banis. 

He  says  they  have  accomplished  this  without  injuring  Cana<iian  in- 
terests to  any  extent  whatever;  and  further,  that  this  admission  i* 
worth  all  their  trouble,  even  if  the  treaty  be  rejected. 

My  friend  from  Delaware  did  not  like  it  the  other  day  when  I  spoke 
of  his  arguing  the  F^riti.sh  side  of  the  question;  but  I  do  not  see  how 
he  can  help  admitting  that  the  British  side  of  the  questirm  is  stated 
ranch  more  strongly  on  the  other  side  of  this  Chamber  than  it  is  by 
Sir  Charles  Tupper. 

In  addition  to  all  this,  Mr.  Davies  admits  what  Sir  Charles  does  not, 
that  the  Canadian  fisheries  laws  have  been  administered  with  the  par- 
pose  of  vexing,  liaraasing,  and  irritating  fishermen  of  the  United  States, 
and  they  have  accomplished  their  purpose. 

Sir  Charles  Tupper  goes  on  to  declare  his  oohfidence  that  the  great 
Democratic  party  will  remain  in  the  majority,  and  what  he  e.Kpcct* 
from  that  part.y,  whose  prospect  of  a  continued  hold  of  power  he  con- 
templates with  so  much  satisfaction,  and  his  especial  deli>;ht  in  the 
Mills  bill. 

He  makes  one  statement  to  which  1  hope  and  believe  even  some  gen- 
tlemen on  the  other  side  will  not  listen  without  indignation.  That 
there  may  be  no  mistake,  I  will  quote  it  in  his  own  words: 

Mr.  Bayard  told  us,  the  .Vmericftu  pluiiipotontiaries  told  us,  that  there  wa» 
but  one  way  of  obtainiiiij  wliat  we  wislied.  "  You  watit  Krcator  free<l<>m  of  com- 
mercial intercourse.  You  wiiut  relaxation  iu  our  tariff  arran>;euicut.4  with 
respect  to  natural  proiiuot.i,  in  which  you  are  so  rich  and  ahuixiaut.  Th.^re  i» 
but  one  way  to  ohUiin  it.  liCt  ii.s  by  common  concession,  be  able  to  meet  on 
common  ground  and  remove  this  irrittiting  cause  of  difliculty  out  of  the  vvay, 
•nd  you  will  find  that  thepolic.vof  thisOoverninent,  the  policy  of  the  President 
And  of  the  Hou.se  of  KepreHenlalives,  the  policy  of  the  yroat  Democratic  party 
of  the  United  States,  will  at  once  take  an  onward  march  in  the  direction  yoiv 


63 


ipropone,  and  will  Accomplish  stoadily  tlint  which  you  would  rtosire  lnth«>oiiljr 
■WHy  by  wliicli  it  can  ever  lie  altiiiin'il."  TIh-mi>  were  not  ttiiiply  woriln.  Tlio<t« 
were  tlieriolHTUttertiiiocsof  iliMliiiKiiiHhe(l»itikte!4iueii,wliopointe<l  to  the  avowed 
policy  of  the  Oovermiiptit  of  the  Oniled  Sliitet  as  the  best  evidence  of  the  slu- 
cority  of  what  tliey  aai«l.  What  has  hauponed  already?  Already  we  have  no- 
tion by  the  f'lnaiK'ial  exponent  of  th«  Adniinistnitiun;  I  nicAii  Mr.  Mim,8.  The 
ink  is  rtcarc'cly  dry  upon  this  treaty  before  he,  as  the  reuresvntative  of  ihe  Oov- 
ernnuMil  and  chairman  of  the  Committee  of  Ways  ana  Means,  brings  forward 
a  meamire  to  do  what?  Why,  to  make  free  articles  that  Canada  sends  into  the 
United  States,  and  upon  which  last  yearJjl.WlO.iXIOof  duty  was  paid.— Oawul fan 
■Coininou.1  Iklialea,  April  10,  1M88,  pages  7'2H,  T^'J. 

Mr.  I're.sideut,  Un.s  is  not  ray  charge.  This  is  the  British  envoy  re- 
portiiiji  to  his  principal.  These  words  were  not  Bpoken  in  a  corner. 
They  were  spoken  in  the  Canadian  Parliament.  They  have  lon^  since 
met  the  eye  of  Mr.  Bayard  and  of  President  Cleveland.  Sir  Charles 
Tupper  (luubtleas  sent  them  to  the  President  and  the  Secretary  of  State, 
as  he  did  to  the  members  of  the  Senate.  They  have  goue  uncontra- 
dicted to  this  moment.  The  Secretary  has  declined  to  make  known 
even  to  us,  who  share  the  treaty-makinii;  power  with  the  President,  the 
preliminary  discussions  which  led  to  the  treaty,  on  the  ground  of  the 
confuieiico  due  to  the  British  negotiator,  a  proceeding  at  which  the 
British  negotiator  expre-sses  his  surprise.  Here  we  have  him,  accord- 
ing to  Sir  Charles  Tupper,  not  as  the  Senator  from  Delaware  said, 
"leavingpartydiviaiouat  the  sliore'sline,"  telling  England,  not  what  is 
the  policy  of  the  American  people  withoutdistinction  ot  party,  not  what 
is  the  policy  of  the  President  and  Senate,  who  are  the  treaty-making 
power  under  our  Constitution,  but  what  is  the  policy  of  the  President 
and  1  louse  of  Representatives,  and  what  is  the  policy  of  the  great  Demo- 
cratic i)arty. 

Tell  us  that  we  are  endeavoring  to  make  a  party  issue  on  this  treaty, 
■when  we  adhere  to  the  policy  that  both  Houses  unanimously  and  with- 
out distinction  of  party  declared  a  little  more  than  twelve  months  ago  ! 
For  the  lir.-st  time,  with  but  a  single  exception,  has  a  Secretary  made 
Buch  an  utterance.  For  the  first  time  in  American  hist<)ry  has  an  ad- 
ministration sought  to  curry  favor  with  Great  Britain  on  party  grounds. 
For  the  first  time  has  an  American  (tiploniatjst  told  her  w  hat  she  had 
to  expect  from  a  party.  It  is  the  author  of  that  utterance  who  depre- 
cates "the  suggestions  of  partisan.ship. " 

I  said  there  was  one  exception.  1  said  that  such  a  statement  was 
tinknown  in  oar  diplomatic  intercourse  with  but  a  single  exception. 
That  exception  falls  far  short  of  the  present  example.  Mr.  Van  Buren, 
■when  Secretary  of  State,  had  given  the  following  instructions  to  Mr. 
McLane,  the  minister  to  Great  Britain,  lor  this  Government  in  the 
negotiation  for  the  opening  of  British  colonial  courts  to  our  commerce: 

The  opportunities  which  you  have  derived  from  a  participution  in  ourpublio 
councils,  as  well  as  other  sources  of  iiirornuition,  will  enable  you  to  Hpeak  with 
confldence  (as  far  as  you  may  deem  it  pro|)er  and  useful  so  to  do)  of  tiie  respec- 
tive parts  taken  by  those  to  whom  theadniinistralion  of  thiaOovernineiit  is  now 
committed,  in  relation  to  the  course  heretofore  pumueij  upon  tliesuUject  of  colo- 
nial trade.  Their  vIcwm  upon  that  point  have  been  submitted  to  the  people  ot 
the  United  States;  and  the  counsels  by  wlii<h  your  conduit  is  nowdirecteil  are 
the  result  of  the  iudKnient  expresscil  by  the  only  earthly  tribunal  to  which 
the  late  iidniiiiistrutioh  was  amenable  for  its  acts.  It  should  be  sutHcient  that 
the  cluiiiis  set  up  by  them,  an<l  which  cauMCtlie  interrupt  ion  of  the  trade  in  ques- 
tion, have  been  exclusively  abandoned  by  those  who  first  asserted  them,  and 
•re  not  revived  by  their  successors.  If  Great  Rritain  deems  it  adverse  to  her  in- 
terests to  allow  us  to  participate  in  th0  trade  with  her  colonies,  and  tlnd.i  nothing 
in  the  extension  of  it  to  others  to  induce  her  to  apply  the  same  rule  to  us,  she 
will,  we  hope,  be  sensible  of  the  propriety  of  placing  her  refusal  uj)on  tliose 
ground!).  To  set  up  the  acts  of  the  late  administration  as  the  cause  ol  forfeiture 
of  privileges  which  would  otherwise  be  extended  to  the  people  of  the  United 
States  would,  under  existing  circumstances,  be  unjust  in  itself,  and  could  not 
foil  to  excite  their  deepest  sensibility.    *    •    •    You  can  not  presa  this  view  of 


m 


■im 


54 

tbe  subject  too  earnestly  upon  the  considorntion  of  the  British  minister.  It  ho  >• 
bearinifs  and  relations  that  reach  beyond  the  immediate  question  under  cuuxid- 
eration. 

All  Mr.  Van  Buren  had  done  was  to  call  attention  to  the  fact  that 
ihe  former  attitude  of  this  country  had  been  taken  under  another  ad- 
miuistraUou;  that  the  part  taken  l)y  the  present  administration  had 
been  dill'erent,  and  that  their  views  hjvd  been  submitted  to  the  people; 
that  the  old  claims  had  been  abandoned  and  not  revivetl.  He  augirested 
no  distinction  between  the  opinions  of  the  House  of  Ueprest  n talis  es  and 
the  Senate.  He  made  no  promise  as  to  the  future  conduct  of  a  party 
as  to  domestic  questions  in  which  (Jreat  Britain  had  an  interest.  His 
utterances  were  in  his  instructions  to  our  own  minister,  not  in  diplo- 
matic intercourse  with  an  envoy  of  Great  Britain. 

For  this  his  nomination  as  minister  to  Great  Britain  was  rejected. 
Mr.  Calhoun,  then  Vice-President,  gave  his  custin^  vote  for  the  rejec- 
tion. 

Hear  what  Delawaie  had  then  to  siiy  on  this  matter.  Mr.  Claytoa 
said: 

"He  waj»  directed  to  Hpealc  with  confidence  of  the  respective  parts  taken  by 
those  to  whom  the  adiuiuiMtrulion  of  this  Government  is  n<jw  cominitteil,"  lo 
l»y  before  Kurope  the  slate  of  parties  in  this  country,  and  to  dejrruile  imd  dis- 
grace all  the  former  administrations  of  our  (iiovernment,  during  wliicli  this 
ri){hl  had  hcen  insisted  upon,  by  entirely  and  nrioonditiunally  witlidrawingull 
our  claims  for  justice  on  that  country.  He  wiis  told,  in  subst.'inie,  to  press  upon 
En^ifland  the  state  of  our  don'estio  and  party  iliirerences  at  home,  and  lie  was 
admonished  that  this  subject  had  hearini^s  and  relations  which  reached  l)eyond 
the  immediatequestion  under  consideration.  *  »  *  I,ct  us  say  to  the  Itritish 
Government  this  day  by  our  vote  that  we  never  consented  to  the  ilisj^raco 
which  has  befallen  us,  and  that  wo  prefer  to  recall  the  minister  who  has  dis- 
honored us,  to  all  the  pn^tended  henelits  of  this  miserable  negotiation.  On  this 
ground  alone  I  will  this  day  condemn  this  appointment  so  far  as  my  vote  will 
go  to  atl'ect  it. 

Mr.  Webster  said: 

I  think  those  Instructions  deroRatory  in  a  hlsrh  degree  to  the  character  and 
honor  of  the  country.  I  think  they  show  a  manifenl  disposition,  In  the  writer 
of  them,  to  establish  a  distinction  between  his  country  and  his  party;  to  place 
that  party  above  the  country;  to  make  interest  at  a  foreign  port  for  that  party, 
rather  than  for  the  country  ;  lo  persuade  the  English  ministry  and  the  Knglistk 
monarch  that  they  hadnn  interest  in  maiiitiiiningin  the  United  States  the  ascend- 
ency of  the  party  to  which  the  writer  i>'ilouns.  Thinking  thus  ol  the  purpose 
and"ol>ject  of  these  Instructions  '  '!an  not  be  of  opinion  that  theirantlior  was  a 
proper  representative  of  the  United  States  at  that  court.  Therefore  it  is  that  I 
propose  to  vote  against  his  n.  '  lination. 

It  is  the  Hrsttime,  I  believe.  In  modern  diplomacy,  it  Is  certainly  the  Arst 
time  in  our  history,  in  which  a  minister  to  a  foreign  court  has  sought  to  make 
favor  for  one  party  at  home  agaiu.st  the  other,  or  hai  stooped  from  being  the 
representative  of  the  whole  country  to  being  the  representative  of  a  party. 
And  as  this  is  the  first  instance  iu  our  history  of  any  such  transacticm,  so  I  in- 
tend to  doall  in  my  power  to  make  it  the  last.  For  one,  t  set  my  markr  fdisap- 
probation  iqjon  it ;  i  contril>ute  my  voice  and  my  vote  to  make  it  a  negative 
example   to  be  shunned  and  avoided  by  all  futtire  ministers  of  the  Uniteil  .Stales. 

If,  in  I  leliberate  an<l  formal  letter  of  iur-truotions,  admoniliors  and  direc- 
tions are  given  to  a  minister  atut  repeated  once  and  again  to  urge  these  mere 
party  considerations  on  the  foreign  government,  to  wliat  extent  is  it  probable 
the  writer  himself  will  be  disposed  towards  tliem  in  Us  one  thousaitd  opportu- 
nities of  informal  intercourse  with  the  agente  of  that  governments 

Mr.  GRAY.  Do  I  understand  the  .Senator  from  Massachusetts  to 
say  that  Mr.  Bayard  In  a  deliberate  and  formal  communication  to  tbe 
British  Government  introduced  any  allusion  to  parties  iu  ihiswuu- 
try? 

Mr.  HOAR.  I  undertake  to  sny  what  Sir  Charles  Tupper  said  in 
•  epeech  which  has  been  publish,  d. 

Mr  GKAY.  I  understood  the  Senator  just  now  to  say  that  io  » 
4t}\\  vate  and  formal  coiumuniciitiou  Mr.  Jiayard  had  done  no. 


65 


Mr.  HOAR.  The  Penater  iniatinden  cooii  me.  I  ^/as  reading  from 
Mr.  Webster. 

Mr.  GliAY.     I  am  glad  to  hear  the  Senator  say  so. 

Mr.  HOAR.  I  am  going  to  repeat  what  I  said.  The  Senator  can 
not  liave  understood  me. 

Sir  diaries  Tupper  says  that  Mr.  Hayard  told  him  in  substance  (I 
am  not  now  giving  thf»  words,  which,  however,  will  be  printed  aa  they 
were  uttered  by  Sir  Charles  Tapper)  tliat  if  he  would  make  thi.s  treaty, 
the  President  and  the  House  of  Keprtseutatives  and  the  great  Demo- 
cratic party  wouhl  do  what  (heat  Ikitain  wantfd,  and  what  Canada 
wanted,  in  regard  to  onr  cust(iiiis  laws  in  that  particular.  Then  I  read 
from  Mr.  Webst«r.  That  was  in  one  of  tlie  informal  opportunities  of 
official  intercourse  v/hich  our  Secretary  of  State  had  with  Sir  Charles 
Tupper. 

Mr.  Webster  a:iid  that  when  Mr.  Van  Buren,  as  Secretary  of  State, 
in  a  formal  letter  to  our  minister  in  England,  had  permitted  such  a 
thing  to  be  said,  it  wius  not  only  bad  in  itself,  but  that  we  might  ex- 
pect in  the  thousand  and  one  oppor\ unities  of  informal  intercourse  be 
would  go  on  to  do  exuc  tly  what  Sir  Charles  Tupper  says  Mr.  Bayard 
has  done. 

Mr.  GRAY.  I  misunderstood  the  Senator  from  Massiichusetts,  but 
I  wish  to  say  that  tiivie  is  not  a  particle  of  evidence  which  the  Sena- 
tor has  pr(idiu;ed  here  showing  that  Mr.  Bayard  ever  used  the  language 
which  he  has  just  quoted. 

Mr.  HOAdi.  Sir  Charles  Tupper  said  it,  and  it  is  uncontradicted. 
Does  the  Senator  believe  that  the  Canadian  minister  of  state,  in  re- 
porting to  that  government  what  took  phice  on  that  occasion,  made  a 
misstatement,  or  if  he  did  that  it  would  have  gone  two  or  three  months, 
fully  known  to  all  mankind,  without  contradiction?  I  have  the  de- 
bates here,  sent  me  by  Sir  Charles  Tupper  himself. 

Mr.  GRAY.     It  will  be  printed,  and  we  shall  look  at  it. 

Mr.  HOAR.     It  is  all  printed,  and  you  can  look  at  it. 

But  the  Senator  fnira  Alabama  threatens  us  with  foreign  war.  He 
Bays  we  object  to  all  negotiations  and  that  "we  propo.se  to  open  the 
door  to  a  new  plan  of  redres.s  which  it  may  be  imp«}ssible  to  close  until 
war  has  filled  our  land  with  slaughter."  Why,  Mr.  President,  if  it 
were  not  for  my  respect  for  the  Senator  from  Alabama,  I  should  say 
that  this  Issupremely  silly.  The  whole  matteris  simple  enough.  The 
people  of  the  United  States  will  not  be  misled.  What  we  propose  to 
say  to  Great  Britain  is  just  this:. We  do  not  agree  that  because  we 
made  onr  tishermen  an  especially  privileged  cla.ss  in  1H18,  when  yoa 
would  admit  no  other  vessel  at  all,  we  are  now  b<mnd  to  except  them 
from  the  advantage  of  the  decencies  of  hospitable  intercourse  as  they 
exist  in  18HH,  But  if  you  think  otherwise,  so  be  it.  You  may  write  the 
law  yourself;  but  the  rule,  whatever  it  is,  must  apply  alike  to  both 
parties.  If  our  fishing  vessels  with  their  cargoes  can  only  enter  your 
ports  for  the  four  purjioses  mentioned  in  the  convention  of  1818,  youra 
■hall  only  enter  ours  for  the  same  purposes. 

Let  the  same  rule  apply  to  both.  If  the  American  fishing  vessel  la 
distress,  or  not  in  distress,  can  not  enter  Canadian  ports  to  buy,  tluu 
the  Canadian  fishing  ves.sel  shall  not  come  into  our  ports  to  sell.  If  we 
can  not  unloitd  our  cargo  c:  fish  there  to  send  it  anywhere  in  the  United 
States  to  be  there  sold,  you  shall  not  unload  your  cargo  of  fish  here  to 
■end  it  anywhere  in  the  United  States  to  be  there  sold.  If  our  ship 
can  not  stay  twenty-four  hours  in  Halifax  your  ship  shall  not  stay 
twenty-four  hours  in  Boston.     What  is  sauce  for  the  cod-fish  is  sauce 


II 


56 


IM 


fof  the  niackertl.  Make  your  own  rule.  Write  your  own  law.  Take 
your  own  medicine.  Put  up  your  own  prescription.  Sir  Charles  Tup- 
per  says  Great  Britain  did  not  renounce  any  rights  lor  her  fishing  vessels 
in  1818.  That  is  true.  But  it  is  also  true  that  she  did  not  get  any 
rights  for  her  fishing  vessels  in  1818,  Her  rights  depend  on  our  statute 
of  1830  and  President  Jackson'.T  proclamation.  Our  rights  beyond  the 
treaty  of  1818  stand  on  the  British  order  in  council. 

If  that  order  in  council  Ciin  be  recalled  at  her  pleasure,  our  statute 
and  proclamation  can  be  repealed  at  ours.  If  her  order  in  council  of 
}8'.i0  did  not  mean  fishing  vessels,  or  can  be  now  so  construed  or  modi- 
fied as  to  not  mean  them,  our  statute  and  proclamation  did  not  mean 
fishing  ves.sel»,  or  may  be  so  construed  or  modilicd  as  not  to  mean  them. 
The  Senator  from  Alabama  misconceives  the  spirit  of  the  American 
people  if  ho  expects  them  to  submit  to  other  terms  than  an  equal  right 
and  an  e(iual  privilege  br  both  sides.  He  undervalues  the  intelligence 
of  the  American  people  if  he  thinks  he  can  ('riij;hten  them  with  the 
idea  that  Great  Britain  will  fight  or  will  engage  in  a  warfare  of  com- 
mercial restrictions  in  such  a  quarrel. 

~  But  the  Senator  says  Congress,  in  the  statute  of  March  3,  1887,  put 
upon  the  President  a  discretion  it  siirauk  Irom  e.-^iercising  itself.  If  it 
meant  retaliation  it  should  have  said  retaliation.  Instead  of  that,  it 
•put  upon  the  President  the  grave  responsibility  of  doing  an  act  of  com- 
mercial unfriendliness  of  his  own  motion.  It  is  no  such  thing.  When- 
ever he  is  satisfied  that  our  fishing  ssels  are  deprived  of  tlieir  rights, 
or  are  nn, justly  vexed  or  harassed  iu  Canadian  waters,  the  statute  de- 
•clares  ''it  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  President,  iu  his  discretion,  to  deny 
the  vessels  of  the  P)ritish  Dominion  or  their  fish  entrance,"  etc.,  with 
proper  exceptions  of  vessels  iu  distress.     He  is  to  make  proclamation. 

Tlie  President  may,  in  his  discrelion,  apply  such  proolainntion  Ui  any  part  or 
to  all  of  the  fore>{oiin{  named  subjects,  and  may  revoke,  qualify,  limit,  ftn<l  re- 
new sucli  proclamation  from  time  to  time  as  he  may  deem  necessary  to  the  full 
and  just  execution  of  the  privilcKcs  of  lliis  act. 

The  discretion  vested  in  him  is  only  as  to  the  extent  he  shall  go. 
That  was  clearly  indispensable.  If  he  had  excluded  fish  only,  and  had 
no  power  to  go  further,  Canada  might  iu  return  exclude  some  other 
products  of  ours  which  she  could  get  elsewhere  as  conveniently.  We 
had  to  arm  him  with  discretion  to  this  extent;  and  also  that  he  should 
not  be  compelled  to  go  further  than  the  exigencies  re(|uired.  But  it 
is  expressly  made  his  duty  to  proceed  to  exercise  his  discretion  under 
the  act,  and  to  take  whatever  of  the  steps  therein  pointed  out  are  nec- 
es.sary  to  aiMJomplish  its  purpose. 

No,  Mr.  President,  the  attempt  to  becloud  this  question  will  not 
avail.  Wo  had  a  very  simple  complaint.  It  was  the  use  of  Canadian 
fishing  laws  and  customs  laws  to  hara.ss  our  fishermen  in  British  porta 
and  waters,  to  compel  us  to  let  in  their  fish  to  our  market  free  of  duty. 
We  gave  the  President  a  very  simple  remedy.  It  was  to  apply  the 
same  rule  to  the  fishermen  of  both  countries.  Congress  unanimously 
thought  that  was  all  that  was  needed,  and  the  President  signed  the 
bill.  But  it  seems  to  have  occurred  to  the  Secretary  of  State  that  his 
favorite  Democratic  doctrine  of  free  trade  could  get  some  advantage 
from  this  business.  He  invited  the  British  commissioners  to  come 
over  here,  and  led  tin  ■  to  expect  they  were  to  discuss  the  matter  of 
adjusting  commercial  nl  itious  by  treaty.  Thi.t  was  found  impracti- 
cable. 

Sir  Charles  Tupper  has  d(  ■  lared  the  astonishment  he  felt  when  he 
found  the  representatives  of  the  United  States  unwilling  to  take  up  the 


67 


sabject.  He  appeals  to  his  own  people  to  decide  whether  Mr.  Bayard's 
letters  and  conversation  had  not  I'airly  led  him  to  that  expectation. 
The  Secretary  then  puts  off  all  the  complaints  of  his  American  fellow- 
citizeus  to  a  remote  future.  He  permits  Great  Britain  to  levive  an  old 
«xplo(led  preteusi<m,  settled  by  a  just  interpretation  of  the  treaty  of 
1818,  settled  by  the  history  of  that  treaty,  settled  by  solemn  adjudi- 
cation, settled  by  long  practice,  settled  by  Great  Britain's  refusal  to 
maintain  the  absurd  pretension  of  Canada.  He  leaves  the  obnoxious 
Canadian  Statutes  unrepealed,  the  obnoxious  Canadian  practices  to  be 
resumed  at  her  pleasure.  He  gets  a  promise  from  Canada  to  observe  a 
few  of  the  common  decencies  of  behavior  and  of  trial,  which  she  con- 
fesses she  could  not  refuse  with  any  regard  to  her  own  credit,  and  a 
promise  to  let  us  buy  supplies  and  transship  c&rjfoes  and  crews  when- 
ever we  admit  her  to  our  magnilicent  market  without  the  Ashing  rights 
which  she  has  so  gladly  and  eagerly  given  for  it  heretofore. 

He  admits  that  Canada  has  done  everything  we  can  reasonably  ask, 
although  our  ve.'ssels  are  still  to  be  seized  by  petty  otlicials,  the  burden 
still  to  be  put  upon  our  tishermeu  of  proving  their  innocence,  and 
neither  damages  or  cost  are  to  be  recovered  lor  the  detention  of  vessels, 
the  seizure  of  ciirgocs,  and  the  breaking  up  of  voyages.  He  a-ssures 
Great  Britain  that  the  oojeets  and  purjwses  of  the  great  Democratic 
party,  of  President  and  House,  are  in  harmony  with  hers,  and  establishes 
the  claim  of  that  party  to  her  luture  sympathy  and  support.  He  in- 
duces his  Democratic  followers  to  reverse  their  own  policy  and  to  eat 
the  bravest  words  they  ever  spoke.  This  is  the  cup  President  Cleve- 
land submits  to  us.  Mr.  Bayard  expressed  in  his  Boston  letter  the  de- 
sire that  this  matter  might  be  discussed  publicly  in  the  Senate.  The 
President  in  his  message -advised  that  we  should  make  public  "the 
exact  substance  of  the  pi^oposed  adjustment  in  p'^oe  of  the  exaggerated 
and  imaginary  statements  which  would  otherwise  reach  the  people." 
I  do  not  think  either  then  expected  to  be  taken  at  his  word. 

No,  Mr.  President,  this  treaty  is  not  the  road  to  honor,  to  safety,  or 
to  peace.  It  is  not  the  road  to  the  respect  of  Great  Britain,  or  even  of 
Cana<la.  Where  it  removes  one  cause  of  discord  it  will  produce  ten. 
Quiet,  firmness,  adherence  to  treaties,  submission  to  the  judgments  of 
duly  constituted  international  tribunals,  the  same  rule  for  both  sides, 
will  give  as  security.  We  can  never  have  commercial  reciprocity  till 
reciprocity  of  justice  and  courtesy  are  first  established. 

The  Americana  are  not  a  quarrelsome  people.  When  we  rememlier 
whose  children  wo  are, we  have  always  shown  a  surprising  readiness  i>> 
yield  our  just  rights  for  the  sake  of  peace.  We  have  little  letY  to  ud 
even  of  that  rash  humor  which  our  mother  gave  us.  But  we  can  never 
live  in  peace  with  Canada  if  weallow  her  to  think  that  the  methods  she 
has  taken  for  the  last  three  years  are  the  ways  to  gain  concessions  from 
us.  Vve  can  never  live  in  peace  with  England  if  wo  permit  her,  with-, 
out  prompt  and  instant  protest,  to  try  once  more  the  experiments  on 
our  Ibrbearance  which  preceded  the  Kevolution,  which  preceded  the 
war  of  1812,  which  accompanied  the  war  of  the  rebellion.  The  rejec- 
tion of  this  treaty  is  in  the  interest  of  a  true,  thorough,  and  liistiug 
peace.  We  have  every  motive  of  kindred,  of  friendship,  and  of  com- 
mercial interest  to  live  in  amity  with  the  mother  country,  and  with  the 
young  power  which  is  rising  on  our  northern  boundary,  whose  frontier 
ifor  more  than  fifty  degrees  of  longitude  marches  side  by  side  with  our 
own. 

We  look  with  no  conterapt  or  dislike  upon  Canada.     We  are  glad  to 


Mi 


w 


58 


s 

if 

if! 

Hi '' 


m 


see  the  spirit  of  her  young  nationalit.v  stirring  in  her  veins.  We  be- 
hold with  admiration  the  growth  of  hur  magnificent  railroad  system, 
and  the  courage  and  enterprise  with  which  her  statesmen  are  adding 
these  new  links  to  the  chain  with  which  England,  like  a  mighty  snake, 
is  winding  her  coils  about  the  globe.  Sir  Charles  Tupperand  Sir  John 
Macdonald  may  well  give  lessons  to  l)oth  sides  of  tliis  Chamber.  She 
is  not  afraid  to  create  or  to  control  the  greitt  railroads  that  are  essential 
to  her  commercial  prosperity.  She  does  not  send  away  her  famous 
engineers,  when  they  place  their  genius  at  her  command,  humbled  and 
balHed  Irom  her  legislative  chamber,  to  die  in  sorrow  and  disappoint- 
ment. She  is  not  afraid  to  build  a  ship-railway  or  even  to  create  a 
navy.  But  when  she  asks  us  to  abandon  our  fishermen  to  her  tender 
mercies,  to  build  up  a  naval  school  for  her  by  giving  her  tishermen  our 
market,  she  asks  what  it  is  neither  titting  for  us  to  yield  nor  for  her 
to  receive. 

The  American,  who  reads  with  pride  the  civic  and  military  history 
of  his  countrj',  can  feel  the  same  satisfaction  when  he  comos  to  the 
chapter  which  tells  of  her  diplomacy.  In  the  day  of  our  infancy  Frank- 
lin, and  Adam«',  and  Jay  encountered  the  trained  diplomatists  of  F^ng- 
land  and  the  continent,  not  merely  as  e<|ual8  but  as  masters.  The 
direct,  open,  sincere,  straighttbrward,  untiring  energy  of  brave  and 
honest  old  John  Adams,  "whose  armor  was  his  honest  thought,  and 
sintple  truth  his  utmost  skill,  "alone  made  possible  the  treaty  with  Hol- 
land. Theconsnmmat«sagacity  and  personal  iutluence  of  Franklin  gave 
us  the  French  alliance.  The  courage  of  Adams,  the  wisdom  of  Frank- 
lin, the  austere  virtue  and  steadfast  flrniness  of  Jay  united  in  1783 
to  save  for  us,  alike  from  the*power  of  our  great  antaf;;onist  and  the 
wiles  of  jealous  and  suspicious  allies,  everything  that  was  essential  to 
greatness  and  glory  by  laud  and  by  sea.  Later,  the  foresight  and  fear- 
leasufess of  Jefferaon gained  for  us  the  great  Louisiana  empire.  Monro? 
and  his  minister  of  .-itate  won  for  us  the  Florida.*. 

At  the  close  of  the  war  of  1812  .lr>hn  Quincy  Adams,  and  Gallatin, 
and  Clay,  and  the  elder  Bayard  met  the  representatives  of  a  power 
that  had  one-half  of  the  world  (or  her  allies  and  the  other  half  at  her 
feet.  England  had  just  overthrown  Napoleon  on  land,  and  swept  the 
navies  of  Europe  from  the  face  of  the  sea.  Yet  we  came  from  the  con- 
test of  war,  and  of  diplomacy,  with  every  right  and  liberty  unim- 
paired, our  honor  without  a  stain,  with  added  glory  to  our  Hag,  and 
the  pretension  for  which  England  had  gone  to  war  with  us  never  to  be 
heard  of  again. 

We  had  another  war  within  our  own  recent  memory.  Our  foes  were 
of  our  (iwn  hou.sehold.  Our  ancient  enemy  and  our  ancient  ally  sat  at 
their  gates,  gazing  across  the  Atlantic,  to  see  if  they  could  discover 
any  pretext  tor  throwing  their  weight  into  the  scale  of  r«bellion. 
England  gave  us  provocation  enough.  You  remember  the  sublime 
patience  with  which  Abraham  Lincoln  waited  until  the  hour  of  our 
strength  came.  It  was  the  (brtune  of  another  Adams  to  address  to 
Earl  hMissell  one  quiet  sentence,  perhaps  the  most  eloquent  that  ever 
cam*  from  an  American  pen — 

It  Is  superfluous  to  observe  to  your  lordship  that  this  ts  war. 

Foreign  oflice  and  law  officer  reversed  their  decisions  in  an  bout 
and  the  rams  were  stopped.  Yon  know  how  the  French  Emperor, 
victor  ol  Sebastopol  and  Holferino,  in  the  height  of  his  military 
strength,  hurried  out  of  Mexico  at  a  word  uttered  by  Mr.  Seward. 
You  remember  the  time  when  General  Grant  gave  notice  that  any 


69 


American  citizen  who  had  a  claim  against  Great  Britain  should  bring 
the  evidence  to  him.  That  hati^jhty  power  sent  over  her  commissionei^ 
to  apologize  for  her  wrong,  and  was  lield  as  a  defendant  to  make  codi 
pensation.  You  remenjher  how  the  diplomacy  of  the  same  grent  ad 
ministration  induced  nearly  every  lirst-chuw  power  in  Europe  to  le- 
nounce  the  old  doctrine  of  perpetual  allegiance  and  let  our  adopted 
citizens  alone. 

Those  were  days  when  the  American  citizen,  native  and  adopted, 
held  up  his  hej«d  in  the  pride  of  his  citizenship.  Those  were  das 
when  our  ten  thousand  million  of  wealth  was  becoming  filty  thousand ; 
better  still,  when  slaves  were  changi'-  into  freemen,  and  freemen  into 
citizens.  Those  were  days  when  the  flag,  beautiful  aa  a  flower  to 
those  who  loved  it,  terrible  as  a  meteor  to  those  who  hated  it,  tioated 
everywhere  in  peaceful  seas,  and  was  honored  everywhere  in  friendly 
ports.  No  petty  Hritish  officer  hauled  it  down  from  an  American  mast 
head.  No  Canadian  minister  of  justice  laughed  in  the  face  of  an  i  juied 
American  citizen  when  (Irant  waa  in  the  White  House. 

I  confess  that,  uinch  meditating  on  these  things,  I  take  little  sati- 
faction  when  I  think  of  Grover  Cleveland.  I  do  not  like  the  poliiy 
which  everywhere  robs  American  citizenship  of  its  glory.  I  do  nut 
like  the  methods  of  fraud  and  crime  which  have  destroyed  popular 
elections  in  so  many  Democratic  States.  I  would  have  the  box  where 
the  Ameriean  freeman  casts  his  ballot  sacred  as  a  sacramental  vessel. 
I  do  not  like  this  conspiraey  between  the  old  slave-holder  and  the 
English  manufacturer,  to  strike  dowu  the  wagesof  the  American  work- 
man and  the  comfort  of  the  American  workman's  home.  I  do  not  like 
your  refusal'to  maintain  the  American  Navy  and  to  fortify  and  defend 
the  American  cotist.  And  I  like  no  better  the  present  treaty.  It  leaves 
the  American  sailor  to  be  bullied  and  insulted  without  redress,  and 
abandons  the  American  right  to  the  fisheries,  older  than  the  nation 
itself  which  the  valor  of  our  fathers  won  for  us  and  the  wisdom  of  our 
fathers  preserved  for  us. 


Appendix. 
A, 

Table  thnwing  number  of  persons  engaged  in  the  fisheries  from  MnxnaehvuetU  and 

thHr  })lnee  ofhirth. 

[Massachusetts State  Census  of  1385.    Taken  from  population  schedules.] 


Place  of  birth  of  foreign-bom. 


Ireland 

Canada  (English) 

Canada  (French) 

England 

Scotland 

Nova  Scotia 

Prince  Edward  Island.,., 

New  Brunswick 

Oermany 


Foreign-born  males. 


Natural- 

Not 
voters.  • 

TotaL 

Aliens. 

ized 
voters. 

138 

186 

179 

SOS 

2 

1 

5 

» 

13 

4 

2 

1» 

41 

40 

1 

88 

16 

12 

2 

SO 

9S0 

210 

149 

1,809 

118 

85 

7 

160 

10 

12 
14 

81 

44 

2 

W 

*  Ratable  polls  only  or  those  having  no  political  condition  (not  inoludlns 
•li«ns). 


i  <■ 


f 


k 


li 


( i 


)  ; 


60 

Table  thovHng  number  of  perioiu  engaged  in  theftsheries  from  MassaehxuetU  and 
their  place  <tf  5ir(/v— Contlnuod. 


Foreign-born  maies. 

Plao«  of  birth  of  foreign-born. 

Aliens. 

Natural- 
ized 
voters. 

Not 
voters.* 

TotaU 

Hwovlon. ..■•..•■•••■«■•••••••••••■•••••••••••••••••«  ••••■•••• 

Portugal  + „ 

AVwitorn  Islands  f «•••• • ..«.. 

221 
167 

409 
403 

53 

52 

51 

165 

18 
28 
41 
28 

292 
247 
601 

599 

Total  foreign-born • 

2,540 

841 

462 

3,843 

Total  native-born • 

4,130 

7,973 

Total  females 

7 

Total  nersons .« 

7,980 

*  Koliable  polls  only  or  those  having  no  political  condition  (not  ineluding 
aliens). 
t "  Portugal"  Includes  depend-ancies  other  than  "  Western  Islands." 

B. 

Letter  from  Profestor  J.  W.  Collins,  Assistant  United  States  Fish  Commissioner,  trana- 
tnitling  stalistion  in  regard  to  the  Jinheries  of  Massachusetts. 

Washington,  D.  C,  May  24, 1888. 

Su:  In  compliance  with  the  iastructions  contained  in  your  letter  of  tliisdatA 
(inclosinga  letter  from  Hon.OEOROBP.  Huar)I  have  the  honortosubuiiithein- 
closed  table  showing  by  customs  districts  and  by  totals  the  nuuil>erand  nation- 
ality  of  men  on  vessels  employed  in  the  cod,  maclcorel,  hivlil>ut,  herring,  and 
other  foo(!-flsli  (isheries.  from  the  State  of  Miissiicliusetts,  during  the  year  1886. 
This  table  has  been  compiled  from  data  obtained  under  the  directioii  of  Mr.  R. 
Edward  Karll,  my  prudece-<8or  in  charge  of  the  division  of  flaheries.  The  facta 
have  been  chiefly  collected  by  experts  of  ihe  Fish  Commission,  but  to  some  ex- 
tent have  been  supplied  by  the  masters  and  owners  of  the  Ashing  vessels. 

There  are  not  available  in  this  otHce  any  statistics  of  the  number  of  men  em- 
ployed in  the  bout  flsheriesof  1886,  but  these  have  been  approximated  from  th« 
returns  ol>taincd  by  the  censusof  1880,  since  which  time  there  has  probably  been 
comparatively  little  change. 

The  number  of  men  employedin  the  whale  flshery  has  been  estimated  on  th» 
basis  of  the  average  crews  of  vessels  in  1880.  At  that  time  the  vessels  averaged 
a  fraction  over  twenty-four  men  each,  and  as  there  were  ninety-six  vessels  «m- 
ployed  in  the  whale  Msheries  from  Massachusetts  in  1886,  it  would  give  us  an  ap- 
proximate number  of  men  engaged  in  that  fishery,  the  lastrmentioned  year,  of 
2,304.    It  hi)s  also  been  necessary  to  make  an  approximation  of  the  numlierof 

feople  employed  in  the  preparation  of  flshery  products  in  Massachnsotta, and 
believe  it  safe  to  assume  that  these  figures  are  not  very  much  ditforent  from 
the  actual  facts  at  the  present  time. 

These  statistics  for  the  vessel  flsheries  have  been  gathered  with  much  care,  as 
previously  stated,  by  experts  thoroughly  familiar  with  the  fisheries,  and  they 
«re,  therefore,  believed  to  be  exceptionally  accurate  and  valuable. 
I  hope  the  table  may  meet  the  requirements  of  Senator  IIoab. 
Yours  very  respectfully, 

J.  W.  COLLINS, 
Assistant  United  States  Fish  Commissioner, 
In  Charge  of  Division  Fi$heri4$, 
tLon.  Marshall  McDonald, 

United  States  Oommissioner  qf  Fish  and  Pishfries, 

Washington,  D.  O, 


61 


Comparative  ulnfement  of  Iheslalii^llea of  lh«  ft.iherie.1  nf  Ua-r^acWteW*,  eonxpilrtl  frnm 
the  cetviis  reJuriM  pniiliahed  in  the  reportji  nf  the  "  FinherieB  hiihmtriet  of  the  Un  iled 
States"  try  the  United  S'alet  Fisli  C')ininisni^>n  in  18S0,  and  the  " tXslierie*  of  Mansa^ 
ehxuettt,  eentufi  of  1885,"  prepared  under  the  direction  of  Coi.  CaiYoU  D.  Wriyht. 


1880.    DNITBD  STATES  FISH  C< 
KEPOKT. 

Ompital  Invested: 

Vessels  and  boats. .._...._ 
Nets  and  trapa 

}MMISSION 

•6,681,980 
369,870 

1885.  Xas  PMBBBIES  OF  MAB8A 

Capital  invested : 

WorkinK  capital,  appa- 
ratus, salt,  and  ice 

OHUSKTIA 

ngs, 
sh... 

Real    estate,    bnlldl 
machinery,  Knd  c& 

7.051,850 
7,282,600 

S3. 660. 681 

Product* : 

Food-flsh 

$4,992.5-il 

649,013 

2,080,a'?7 

120.  6.59 

299,200 

Products : 

Kood-flsK -  ...... 

$4,566,679 
359.257 

Shell-HsU 

Shell-fish 

Whale  fishery 

Whale  fishery 

Fish  products 

Miscellaneous 

•  •••• 

1,270,543 

Fertilizer,  etc 

Miscellaneous 

..*•*. 

2.50, 1.39 
36,074 

Total 

— 

M,  OtAl.  ••••■•••«••■•■•••  ••• 

8.141,750 

6,462,692 

Vessels  and  tonnage : 

Fold  fl.shery 

Menhaden  fishery 
Oyster  fishery 

799 

35 

6 

161 
1 
6 

42,118.00 

1, 269. 70 

557.54 

36,786.51 

84.65 

264.00 

Vessels  and  tonnage: 
Schooners 

736 

65 

3 

72 

866 

47. 767. 28 

Whale  fishery 

Seal  fishery _... 

Squid  fishery _ 

Sloops - 

Steamera 

Whale  fishery 

Total ....._ 

352. 22 

159.03 

19,932.96 

Total 1 

,007 

81. 080. 49 

68,211.49 

Small  boats: 

In  vessel  fishery 

In  shore  fishery.. 

8,822 
2,927 

Small  boats : 

Dories,  seine-boa 
shore-boats,  etc 

tl, 

Total 

6,749 

B.SOS 

Pel  sons  employed : 

Vessel  fishermen.-... 
Boat  li.sluTiiien 

.—^ 

8,646 
4,528 
3,991 

Persons  employed : 

Resident  fishermen 

Non-resident  fisher- 
men   

Whale  fishermen 

11,743 

Total _ 

17,165 
2,952 

3,933 

759 

Shore  hands 

Shore  hands 

Total 

•  •••• 

Total -« 

20,117 

15, 435 

There  has  been  considerable  decrease  in  the  number  of  ves.sels  and  men  em- 
ployed in  the  whale  fishery  from  New  England  since  1880,  chiefly  due  to  the 
fact  that  the  vessels  have  been  tran-*ferred  from  New  Bugland  whaling  ports  to 
San  Francisco.  In  18.H6  there  were  only  ninety-sir  vessels  employed  in  the 
whale  flsliery  from  Massachusetts  against  one  huitdred  and  sixty-one  in  1880, 
and  the  decrease  in  the  number  of  men  would  bo  approximalely  l,3tK).  This 
number  subtracted  from  the  17,165  employed  in  the  flslieries  of  Massachusetts, 
according  to  the  census  of  1880,  would  leave  15,765,  as  against  14,676  reporteil  by 
the  census  of  Massachusetts  in  1885.  It  seems,  therefore,  that  these  strtlistioal 
statements  corrobo.'ate  each  other,  and  that  there  was  a  pro>>able  decrease  of 
about  one  thousand  employed  in  the  State  between  1880  and  1885. 

The  hands  employed  ashore  in  preparing  boneless  fish,  fish-glue,  etc., all  of 
which  were  included  in  the  report  of  1880,  are  not  taken  into  acoouut  in  the 
Stale  census,  where  they  come  under  the  bead  of  "Manufactures." 


Il '' 


rssi 


62 

Tabu  ihowing  by  customs  dMricts  the  numherx  and  nationalil]/  of  men  on  VM$tla 
employed  in  the  end,  m^tfkerel,  halibut,  herring,  and  other  food-fUh  fisheritt  from 
UaaiacSiuaetts  during  the  year  1886. 


Customa  diatriota. 

"2- 

a> 

•i 

u 

3 

izi 

Number  of  British 
provincials. 

i 

s 

l«3 

a  S 

«■  Ji 

J. 

1. 

0  « 

ft 

r 

Newburyport 

53 

5,193 

137 

255 

756 

54 

2,413 

14 

25 

89 

49 

3,305 

III 

251 

567 

51 

940 

14 

26 

64 

4 

1,102 

26 

2 

106 

3 

604 

92 
65 
81 
98 
75 
95 
39 
100 
100 
72 

8 
21 
19 

1 
14 

5 
26 

<31oueester 

726 

14 

Salem  and  Beverly 

IVIarbiehead 

2 
83 

1 

Boston 

u 

Ply  moil  tlk ,« 

Barnstable 

869 

86 

New  Bedford™ 

26 

28 

ToUl 

8,989 

6,437 

1,817 

1.705 

60.4 

20.5 

19.1 

Note. — In  addition  to  the  above  there  were  twenty-five  American  subjects 
and  one  foreigner  employed  on  vessels  engaged  exclusively  in  tlie  lobster  and 
menhaden  tisheriea. 

These  flgrures  do  not  include  men  fishing  in  boats  and  ves-sels  under  6  tons 
burden,  nor  men  fishing  on  vessels  employed  in  the  whale  fishery.  Approxi- 
mate figures  for  tlie.'^e  fisheries  show  4,528  men  in  the  boat  fishery  and  2,304  men 
in  the  whale  fishcvy. 

No  account  is  here  taken  of  curers,  packers,  fitters,  and  factory  hands,  the  ap- 
proximate number  of  whom  is  2,952. 

O. 

Table  showing  number  of  fisherman  and  oysierv^en  in  New  England  and  their 

place  of  birth. 
FFrom  tlie  United  States  Census  of  1880.] 

Number  of  fishermen  and  oystermen  in  Massachusetts 6,103 

Number  of  flji"-«rnien  and  oystermen  in  Maine >    4,244 

Number  of  fishermen  and  oystcrmeu  in  New  Hampshire 220 

Total  in  Maine,  New  Hampshire,  and  Massrchusetts 10,673 

Number  of  fisliermen  and  oystermen  in  Uliode  Island 879 

Number  of  Ushermeu  and  oystermen  in  Connecticut 1,260 

Total  in  New  England  (Vermont  excluded) 12,712 

DETAIL  SHOWING   NATIVITY. 


I  ill' 


Bute*. 

1 

S 

a 

c 

ct 

I 

HI 

'5 
1 

o 

-§1 
IK 

1 

s 

8 

a 

\f  AinA ......■■•<•■••••••• 

4,017 

8,529 

207 

12 

492 

8 
35 

24 

129 
1 

1 

237 
4 

162 

1,271 

9 

20 

Massachupetts « 

410 
5 

Total 

Kbode  Island 

7,753 

823 

1,198 

504 
18 
15 

43 
6 
8 

154 
18 
12 

242 
8 
6 

1,442 

12 

2 

4.35 
12 

20 

Total 

9,774 

637 

56 

184 

250 

1,466 

467 

63 


Bxtraet  from  the  report  of  Profetiatr  Spencer  F.  Baird,  CommUrtoner  of  FUherUg, 

/or  18«4. 

After  giving  a  list  of  his  authori'Jes  (Census  Report  for  1890)  Professor  Baird 
continues  as  follows : 

"  The  general  results  of  the  investigation,  from  the  statistician's  standpoint, 
may  be  briefly  summarized  as  follows : 

"In  1880  the  number  of  persons  employed  in  the  fishery  Industries  of  the 
United  States  was  131,426,  of  whom  101,684  were  flslieriuen  and  the  remainder 
were  sljoremen.  Tlie  tithing;  fleet  consisted  of  6,605  vessels  (with  a  tonnage  of 
208,297.821  and  44,804  boats,  and  the  total  amount  of  capital  invested  was  $37,- 
»35,,3»y.  distributed  as  follows:  Vessels,  89,357,282;  boats,  82,465,393;  minor  ap- 
paratus and  outtlts,  $8,145,261;  other  capital,  Includhit;  shore  property,  $17,987,- 
413. 

"The  value  of  tlie  fisheries  of  the  sea,  the  great  rivers,  and  thp  great  lakes 
wasplaoed  at  $^13,(>46,ft'>;i,  and  tliat  of  those  in  minor  iuland.waters  at  $1,5<X),000, 
In  alt,  $-11,546,053.  Tliese  values  were  estimated  upon  the  liasis  of  the  prices  of 
the  products  received  by  the  producers,  and  if  ayeniffe  wliolesale  prices  liad  lieeu 
considered  tlie  value  would  have  been  much  sn^eater.  In  1832  the  yield  of  the 
fisheries  was  much  greater  than  in  1880,  and  prices,  both  at  first  hand  and  at 
wholesale,  were  higlicr,  so  that  a  fair  estimate  at  wholesale  market  rales  would 
place  their  value  at  the  present  time  rather  above  tliiin  below  8I00,IX»0,0(X). 

"  The  fisheries  of  the  New  England  States  are  the  most  important.    They  en- 

fage  37,043  men,  2,060  vessels,  14,787  boats,  and  yield  prodiiota  to  the  value  of 
14,270,393.  In  this  district  the  principal  fishing  points  in  order  of  importance 
are:  Gloucester,  New  Hedford,  the  centerof  the  wliale  fishery,  Eastport,  Boston, 
Provinpetown,  and  Portland. 

"Next  to  New  England  in  importance  are  the  Si)\ith  Atlantic  States,  employ- 
ing 52,418  men,  3,014  vessels  (the  majority  of  which  are  suuiil,  and  engaged  in 
shore  and  bay  fisheries),  13,331  boats, and  returning  pruducts  to  the  value  of  $9,- 
602,737. 

"  Next  are  the  Middle  States,  employing  In  the  coast  fisheries  14,981  men,  1,210 
ves.sel8,  8,293  boats,  with  products  to  the  amount  of  $8,676,579. 

"Next  are  the  Pacific  States  and  Territories  with  16,8o3  men,  56  vessels,  S.S-l? 
boats,  and  produetstotheamount  of  $7,484,750.  The  fisheries  of  the  Great  Lakes 
employ  5,050  men,  62  vessels,  and  1,591  boats,  with  products  to  the  amount  of 
$1,784,050.  The  Gulf  States  employ  5,131  men,  197  vessels,  and  1,252  boats,  yield- 
ing products  to  the  value  of  $545,584." 

E. 
[Resolutions  of  the  city  of  Gloucester.] 

CITT  OF  QLOUCKSTEE. 

In  Common  Co0NCiLr'J^e6ruari/  28, 1888. 

Resolved,  That  the  city  council  of  Gloucester  earnestly  protest  against  the 
adoption  of  the  so-called  Fisliery  Treaty,  wliich  is  now  before  the  United  States 
Senate  for  ratifiwition,  believing  that  its  adoption  will  be  a  great  injury  to  the 
fishing  interests  of  the  coimtry. 

Resolved,  That  the  Senators  ana  Members  of  Congress  representing  the  State 
of  Massachusetts  be  requested  to  use  all  their  influetice  to  prevent  the  adoption 
of  tills  treaty,  to  the  end  that  the  fishing  industryof  the  country  may  notbesao- 
rifioed. 

Resolved,  That  a  copy  of  those  resolutions  be  sent  to  United  States  Senators 
HoAK  and  Dawes,  also  to  each  Massaclmsetta  Luomber  of  the  House  ol^  Kepre- 
•entatlvcs.  and  that  his  honor.  Mayor  Robinson,  be  requested  to  transmit  the 
same  at  once. 

Adopted.    Sent  up  for  concurrence. 

A.  F.  STICK  NEY,  CUrh. 

Is  BoAED  OF  ALDERME^f,  STarch  8, 1888. 

JOHN  J.  SOMES,  CUrk. 

DAVID  I.  ROBINSON,  ilaj/or. 

JOHN  J.  80ME.S.  OUv  Clerk. 


Adopted  in  concurrence. 
Approved  March  12, 1888, 
A  true  copy,  attest: 


ilii 


i 


1;! 

I-  ; 


ll'   ! 


s^; . 


64 

F. 

Preamble  and  resolutions  ivdopteil  ata  meetlngof  the  Gloucester  Master  Marin* 
er»'  AsKociiitlon,  lit  (lloucester,  Mrtss.,  Friday  eveiiinjjf,  April  13,1883;  Henr^ 
B.  Thouifts,  president;  William  M.  Oatl'ney,  secretary. 

/whereas  in  every  treaty  between  Great  Britain  and  the  United  States  slno* 
i783,  the  rlKhlfl  of  Aineriean  flshermen  have  been  sacrificed:  and 

Whereas  the  present  treaty  now  under  consideration  by  the  Senate  of  the 
United  Statex  is  a  still  fiirlberHurrend'jrof  our  ritjhts  upon  the  liiKh  seas,  littlie 
proposed  act  of  delimltalion  by  which  the  headland  theory  of  Ureal  Urituiu  is 
established,  and  Jurisdiction  is  asauinud  over  waters  which  are  the  property  of 
all  nations;  and 

Whereas  by  the  terms  of  this  treaty  the  common  offloes  of  humanity,  ao» 
knowtedKcd,  practiced,  and  obeyed  by  all  civilized  nations,  have  been  claimed 
as  concessions  and  made  a  matter  of  bargain  and  sale ;  and 

Whereas  tlie  ambijjuous  lan^funi^e  of  this  treaty  makes  many  of  its  provis- 
ions  uncertain,  rcstini;  their  interpretations  solely  upon  Canadian  local  law; 
and 

Whereas  no  indemnity  for  past  wrongrs  and  outrages  are  provided,  and  no 
recognition  of  the  rights  conferred  bn  American  vessels  in  Canadian  ports,  by 
mutual  leKislaiion,  is  made,  but,  on  (he  contrary,  every  such  right  is  denied 
and  the  bdrl>arou8  acts  of  Canada  is  justilled  and  allowed ;  and 

Whereas  both  treaty  and  protocol  are  but  the  initiatory  steps  towards  th« 
complete  surrender  of  the  markets  of  the  Unite<l  States,  by  whicli  the  flKherie* 
of  Canada  will  be  d»;yel<>ped  and  enlarKcd  and  those  of  the  Uiulcd  States  de- 
pleted and  dewlroyed:  Therefore, 

Resolved,  That  this  ttssociation,  composed  of  the  masters  of  American  fishing- 
vessels,  who  know  by  contact  an<l  experience  the  full  si^^nitlcance  of  Canadian 
diplomacy,  cordially  unite  ^vttli  their  brethren  of  other  associations  in  the  fol- 
lowing declarations: 

That  in  common  with  the  other  producing  industries  of  the  country,  we  ask 
of  the  General  Government  neither  subsidy  nor  bounty,  but  simply  equal  pro- 
tection. 

That  we  have  -neither  awked  nor  souj;  lit  the  Intervention  of  any  commission, 
mixed  or  other>  >e,  to  define  our  just  rights  upon  the  liiKh  seas  or  in  foreign 
ports,  but  have  appealed  to  our  own  Government  to  maintain  the  ihtegrity  and 
just  interpretation  of  treaties  and  legislation,  under  which  our  business  right* 
as  American  citizens  are  afl'ccted. 

That  we  neither  use  nor  desire  to  use  Canadian  waters  for  practical  flshinfc 
but  simply  ask  that  our  commercial  rights  therein  shall  be  defined  by  our  own 
Qovernraent,  and  when  po  defined,  maintained. 

That  the  American  ocean  fisheries  are  not  dependent  upon  any  favor  or  privi- 
lege, to  be  granted  by  Canada,  but  on  the  contrary  the  natural  resources  of  our 
own  country  and  the  high  seas  atlbrd  everything  necessary  for  the  prosecution 
of  our  business. 

That  we  will  cheerfully  conform  to  whatever  construction  our  own  Oovert.- 
ment  shall  place  upon  existing  treaties  and  legislation,  and  desire  no  new  treaty 
that  shall  dictate  our  national  legislation  or  destroy  the  small  remnant  of  pro- 
tection we  now  have. 

Kexolved,  That  we  appeal  to  the  honorable  Senate  of  the  United  States,  which 
has  by  a  most  eminent  commission  thoroughly  investigated  the  subject  of  our 
fishery  relations  with  Canada,  and  whose  report  has  pa8.sed  through  the  legis- 
lation of  both  Houses  of  Congress,  been  unanimously  approved,  to  sustain  tho 
honor  and  dignity  of  the  Government  of  the  United  States,  by  maintaining  the 
integrity  of  their  action, 'and  the  rights  of  our  citizens,  by  refusing  to.acprovo 
the  'realy,  or  consent  to  so  complete  a  surrender  of  our  rights  iis  a  natioi  . 

Resolved,  That  as  the  entire  fishii'g  interest  of  the  United  States  has  not  been 
allowed  any  representation  whatever  by  tho  negotiators  of  this  treaty,  whilo  • 
the  commission  of  the  Senate  visited  every  location  and  oVjtained  sworn  testi- 
mony from  tho  operative  fishermen  of  the  country,  the  reason  for  the  difference 
in  results  is  clearly  apparent. 

Reaolved,  That  we  respectfully  ask  for  prompt  and  immediate  action  upon 
this  treaty,  by  the  honorable  Senate,  in  order  that  our  nnt  onal  honor  may  be 
▼indicated,  and  the  rightsof  our  citizens  assured,  in  every  foreign  port  and  upon 
the  high  seas. 

Capt.  Henry  B.  Thomas,  srhooner  M.  H.  Thomas;  Capt.  Joseph 
Smith,  schooner  Lizzie  M.  Center;  Capt.  George  A.  Johnson, 
scliooner  Augusta  H.  Johnson;  Capt.  John  Chisliolm,  schooner 
•  Harry  G.  French :  Capt.  Nathaniel  P.  Smith,  schooner  Margio 
Binith;  Capt.  John  P.  Aiken,  schooner  Hartie  Pierce:  Capt. 
Thomas  II.  White,  schooner  Riipid  Transit;  Capt.  William  Mail- 
man, schooner  Alabama ;  Capt.  Joseph  K.  Qraham,  schooner  Star 


65 


•tor  Morsfau;  Cnpt.  John  MoTnnin,  schoonor  WilUe  M.  Stevens; 
Capl.  John  A.  McKlnnon,  scliooner  Mnyflowei-;  (.'nut.  (>«-o.  H. 
Murtin,  schooner  Ethel  Maud;  Capt.  Pins  MoDonMld,  aoliooner 
Kditb  S.  Walen;  Capt.  John  Geary,  schooner  Delia  F.  Tarr; 
Capt.  William  H.  McDonald, schooner  Blue  Jacket;  Capt.  Alex- 
ander McEachern,  schooner  MiiHCot;  Capt.  Hylvanus  McPhee, 
Bt'hooner  C'anopus;  ('apt.  Joseph  I.  Tnpper,  noliooiier  .Jennie 
Seaverns;  Capt.  Solomon  A.  Howe,  schooner  \Vn>.  11.  Koye; 
CaDt.  Oeo.  W.  Dixon,  schooner  Henry  W.  I.onufclUnv ;  Capt. 
Manuel  Kilva,  schooner  J.  \V.(>>llins;  Capt.  William  F.  Ilarrin, 
schooner  Col.  J.  H.  French;  Capt.  EdwHrd  Morris, schooner  Alv 
bie  F.  Morris;  Cnpt.  Colin  Chisholm,  schooner  John  W.  (Mmp- 
bell;  Capt.  .lohn  Collins, schooner  Annie  M.  Jonlan  ;  Cspt.  An- 
gus McKay, schooner  New  Eiiurland  ;  Capt.II.  M.Heelye.schooner 
Arsonant;  (^npt.  .John  8.  Mc(Ju in,  schooner  Druid;  Ca|)t.  Alex- 
ander McNeil,  schooner  M.  A.  lUiston ;  Capt.  John  McKinnon, 
schooner  Htarry  FIar;  ('apt.  Sidney  Smith,  .schooner  Fred.  P. 
Frye;  Capt.  N.  A.  McKinney,  schooner  Shiloh;  Capt.  Kol>ert 
Smith,  schooner  Volunteer;  Capt.  Joseph  L.  Swim,  schooner 
Edith  Uowe;  Capt.  Levi  N.  Mcl^ean,  schooner  Herald  of  the 
MnrninK;  Cept.  U.  I.  Cunnintrhain,  schooner  En<>l»  C. ;  Capt. 
Charles  Lee,  schooner  'Orient;  (Japt.  James  MoHlmia,  schooner 
Alert;  Capt.  Jesse  Lewis,  schooner  Lizzie  W.  IJannum;  Capt. 
James  Fiers,  schooner  Zenobia;  Capt.  Co'in  Mcintosh,  schooner 
Nellie  G.Thurston;  Capt.  James  Cromwell,  schooner  Halt  ie  Eve- 
lyn; Capt.  James  Simpson, schooner  Ralph  E.  Eaton;  Capt.James 
L.  Anderson,. Hclioouer  Wm.  H.  .Jordan  ;  Cnpt.  .Joseph  M.  Henr>e, 
schooner  Star  of  the  Eiist;  Capt.  Ko>)ert  I'orper,  schooner  (ihui- 
stone;  Capt.  William  P.  Gray,  schooner  I^eonu;  dipt.  Charles 
Martin,  schooner  John  S.  McQuiu;  Capl.  (Charles  J.  Liiwson, 
schooner  Herman  Babson;  Capt.  Jolin  ^[a^»lmll,  Hchooner  Land- 
seer;  Capt..Sewall  W.  Smith,  schooner  Itatller;  Capl.  B.  A.  Will- 
iams, schooner  O.  P.Whitman;  (Japt.  Utissell  D.  Terry,  schooner 
Ada  II.  Terry;  Capt  M  B.  Murray,  schooner  M.  M.  Minray  ; 
Capt.  Frank  Veator,  schooner  Alice;  Capt.  Daniel  Mclntyre, 
schooner  Gertie  Evelyn;  Capt.  Harry  Gardner,  schooner  Samuel 
V.(;olby;  Capt.  William  (Joold,  shooner  F.  W.  Honnins;  ("apt. 
Jed.  Warren,  schooner  AliceC.  Jordan  ;  Capt.VVilliiim  Dempsey, 
schooner Muttic  l'\  Dyer;  Capt.  Owen  A.  Whilten.sohoonerCiirr  o 
W.  Biiljson;  Capt.  William  llerriric,  schooner  (ieorKe  F.  Kceiie; 
Capt.  John  W.  McFarland,  schooner  Kmnui  W.  Brown;  Capt. 
William  H.  Greenleat',  .schooner  Porter  .S.  Hohcrts;  Capt.  Jtihn 
Dowdell,. schooner  Matthew  Keany ;  Capt.  F.  H.Vautifr,  schooner 
Thetis;  Capl.  John  Caniptiell,  schooner  (Jra'-'^  !,.  I'l.ars;  ('apt. 
William  H.  Collins,  si'hooner  Lucy  K  Fricinl;  Cspt.  John  A. 
Griilin.  schooner  Lizzie  Gritllt\;  Capt,  William  N.  Wells,  schoon  r 
Bessie  N.  Wells;  Capt.  Tlionias  Bohlin,  schooner  .John  G.  Whit- 
tier,  Capt.  Thomas  Jones,  schooner  Alice  .'^.  liiiwkes;  Cnpt. 
William  T.  Lee,  schooner  Sarah  E  Lee;  Capl.  Ili'iiry  F.  Brown, 
schooner  Eilith  Conley  ;  ('apt.  Amos  N.  Km  klifl'e,  schooner 
Frank  A.  Itacklifl'e;  Capt.  Stephen  B.  Cole,  schooner  Lelia  Nor- 
■wood;  ('apt.  Nathaniel  tirecnlcaf,  schooner  Lizeie  J.  Greenleaf; 
Capl.  O.  B.  Fitch, pchnoner  i>!ivy  (^-ocketl;  (^npt  Marian  Eaton, 
schooner  Electa  A.  ICalon  ;  (^ipt.  SVdsonCaiioon,  schooner  Flora 
Dllloway  ;  ('apt.  Frank  H.  Hall,  schooner  Fannie  Bell;  Capt. 
Wm.  H.  Thomas,  schooner  My.stic;  (Jnpt.  Edward  Stujileton, 
schooner  Cham[)ion;  Capt.  Dan'el  .McKinnon,  schooner  Minne« 
BOta;  Capt.  John  A.  McDonald,  schooner  \V.  \V.  Kice;  Capt. 
Thomas  Lewis,  schooner  Win^jed  Arrow;  Capt.  Peter  McAuley, 
schooner  A.  E.  Whyland  ;  Capt.  ThonmsGood  win,  schooner  Lot- 
tie P.  Morton;  Capt.  (Jliver  Collins,  scliooner  Robert  J.  ICdwards  ; 
Capt.  Pius  McPhee,  huhooner  David  A.  Story  ;  Capt.  D.  S.  Nicker- 
son,  schooner  William  H.  WellinKton;  Capl.  Hanson  Joyce, 
sU*amer  Novelty;  Capt.  Edward  W.  Hull,  schooner  !\Iartlia  A. 
Bradley;  Capt.  D.  E.  Collins, schoonerGrampus;  Capt.  Wdli«m 
Grant,  schooner  David  Low;  (Japt.  Sttli  S.  Nickerson,  schooner 
Sarah  P.  Ayer;  Capt.  .John  E.  Siifsworth,  schooner  Anne  and 
Mary;  Capt.  Maurice  Whalen,  schooner  Fannie  W.  Freeman; 
Capt.  Frank  WriBht,  schooner  Magnolia;  Capt. Otto  Johnson, 
schooner  Loring  B.  Haskell:  Capt.  Osborne  Maguire;  Capt.  Al- 
bert Henrdick.son,  schoomT  Brunhilde;  Capt.  T.  F.  Hodgdon, 
schooner  Ralph  F.  Hodsrdon;  Capt. .lames  A.  McKlnnon,  schoonet 
Ada  M.  Hall ;  Oapt.  Charles  Niite,  schooner  Fernwood ;  Capl. 


Ml 


ilii 


Hi 


BOAR- 


m 


w 


John  PaRo,  sohooiicr  Concord ;  Oapt.  Jerome  B.  McDonald, 
Hcooner  Monitor;  ('apt.  Adkiis  (/ainpbell,  soliooner  AiiKUstu  E. 
Ilerric'k;  Capl.  Andrew  McKenzie.  »i;liooii«'r  Senator  Hau'sbiiry  ; 
f'lipt.  Oeorgt- M.  Mij<JIain,  scliounerKenry  Dennin;  ("apt.  (Uiarlet 
ltiirty,Hch(>oner  I.  J.  Alcrritt,  jr.;  Cni>t.  LoringK.  NaiisH, Helionnet 
Uclle  A.  Nauss  ;  Cnpt.  Frank  (varrotl,  Hchooncr  Warren  J.  (Irosby; 
Ciipt.  AuKUstii^'  Hall,  schooner  Anna  K.  Cannon  ;  ('apt.  AU-xunder 
Trench,  schooner  Marion  Grimes;  Capt.  Franlt  KoMtcr,  schooner 
Knmli  Foster;  Capt.  Kdward Trevoy,  ncliooner  Edward Trevoy; 
Capt.  Joseph  Ifyan,  scliooner  A.  1).  Story;  Capt.  Willioin  Mi*, 
guiro,  Mcho<iner  Joliti  VV.  Hray;  Capt.  Thomas  Parris,  schooner 
Governor  liiitler;  Capt..)ohn  A.Vibert.schoonerSpenecrF.naird; 
Capt.  Cornehiis  Thorbiirne,  schooner  .Tohn  S.  Prosson  ;  ('apt. 
Wni.  Qibbs,  schooner  Oecanus ;  (^apt.  John  (_!ouHens,  schooner 
Barraeoiita;  Capl.  L.  (:^.  liodKdon.  schooner  William  H.  Oostt; 
Ciipt.  Cliarles  benson,  schooner  Khza  It. ;  Capt.  Alex.  Haines, 
Bcliooner  Julia  Whalen;  Capt.  Peter  Rol>ert^.  schooner  Vesta; 
Cupt.  John  (4.  Oetchell.  schooner  Vinnie  M.  Oetchell;  Capt.  John 
Tavener,  schooner  Afattie  Winship;  ("apt.  Zeniis  Urown.scliooner 
Morrill  Boy;  ('apt.  Thomas  Thompson,  schooner  Edward  Ever- 
ett; Capt.  John  Coney,  schooner  Lizzie;  Capt.  A.  J.  Burnhara, 
schooner  Kobin  Hood;  Capt.  Kdward  CoSKrove,  schooner  Alert; 
Capt.  Willard  G.  Pool,  schooner  George  F.  Edmunds;  Capt. 
AVilliam  Kiff,  schooner  Fleetwinpr;  Capt.  B.  F.  Payson,  schooner 
S.  F.  Afaker  :  Capt.  Charles  B«irchart,  schooner  William  M.i^aff- 
ney;  Capt.  Kdward  Groves,  schooner  Edward  P.  Boynton  ;  Capt. 
Colin  Chisholni,  schooner  J.  W.  Campbell ;  Capt.  CharlesSmith, 
schooner  Fmance ;  Capt.  John  McDonald,  schooner  Farmer  R. 
Walker;  Capt.  John  McDonnell,  schooner  Scud. 

G. 

Resolntlons  adopted  by  the  New  York  Board  of  Trade  and  Transportation,  at 
the  monthly  mectini;,  March  14,  1S8M. 


v. 


THE  FISHKBT  TREATY. 


Whereas  Canada,  under  a  forced  interpretation  of  the  treaty  of  1818,  (which 
was  .luperceded  by  tho^e  of  !,s;W  and  1871,)  has  sought  by  unjust  seizures  of 
American  fi.shing  ves.sela  to  compel  the  United  States  to  admit  salt  llsli  free  of 
duty ;  and 

f  Whereas  the  United  States  Commissioners  appointed  to  negotiate  a  just  and 
equitable  treaty  for  the  settlement  of  the  llshcrie.-^ciucstion  have  reported  a  form 
of  treaty  which  is  unjust  and  inenuitable,  iiiHsmuch  as  it  deities  to  Americans 
(unless  purcha.sed  bymaklnB  flsh  free  of  duty)  the  same  rights  which  w<e  con- 
cede to  the  Canadians,  namely,  the  purchase  of  supplie."!,  the  shipment  of  mer- 
chandise in  bond  from  one  country  to  another,  the  .shelter  in  port  for  a  longer 
period  than  twenty-four  hours,  and  fishing  in  waters  more  than  3  miles  from 
shore  if  within  iniiiKinary  lines  drawn  from  headland  to  headland;  and 

Whereas  the  justice  of  all  the.-e  claims  of  American  flshermen  was  conceded 
by  our  Department  of  State, as  is  shown  by  its  corre-pimdence,  but  they  were 
waived  by  the  American  commissioners,  apparently  with  an  entire  disregard  of 
the  rights  and  interests  of  American  fishermen  ;  and 

Whereas  Canadian  fishermen  enjoy  advantages  in  bounties,  special  exemp- 
tion from  taxation,  and  lower  prices  for  labor  and  materials  which  are  not  en- 
joyed by  American  fishermen,  and  which  would  speedily  crush  our  American 
fishing  industry  if  the  proteoling  harrier  of  the  dutv  was  removed,  an  illustra- 
tion of  which  is  seen  in  the  ertect  of  the  treaty  of  Washington,  under  which  the 
Canadian  lishing  fleet  increased  in  twelve  years  from  four  hundred  vessels  to 
eleven  hundred,  while  ours  decreased  in  the  same  time  31)  per  cent. : 

Rfsolred,  That  as  long  as  any  industry  is  thus  protected  in  the  United  States 
the  duty  on  flsh  should  be  continued,  and  when  removed  the  persons  engaged 
in  this  hazardous  industry  should  he  granted  a  bounty  which  will  in  some  de- 
gree encourage  Ihem  to  continue  sanie.J} 

Resolved,  That  the  importance  of  Ihe'sea  fisheries  to  our  count. -y  can  not  bo 
measured  by  the  capital  employed,  for  they  con.stitule  a  nursery  for  our  com- 
mercial marine  and  our  Navy,  the  usefulness  of  which  has  been  demonstrated 
In  every  eraerjrency  when  we  have  been  called  upoo  to  maintain  the  rights  and 
honor  of  our  flag  on  the  high  seas. 

Resolved,  That  while  we  have  every  desire  to  cultivate  friendly  relations  with 
onr  neighbors  and  to  encourage  the  present  Administration  't\  efforts  to  that 
end,  we  wotild  be  false  to  our  duties  as  American  citizens  and  business  men  if 
w«  failed  to  protest  against  the  ratification  of  a  treaty  so  unjust  and  inequitable 
and  which  sacrifices  nearly  every  right  for  which  our  Government  has  been  con- 
tending. 

Resolved,  That  thlsquestion  should  not  be  considered  from  an  administration 
or  anti-administration,  a  free-trade  or  protection  point  of  view,  but  from  »  ua* 


67 

tfonal  And  busliicns  gtandpoint,  and  we  f<>el  conddent  that  If  thU  treaty  in  thna 
considered  it  will  not  receive  the  approval  of  the  Senate,  the  c<>-(>rdi)\nlel>ranoh 
of  the  treaty-makinR  power. 

Reaolctd,  That  if  the  Canitd  Ian  Government  should  persi.st  in  nnjust  treatment 
of  Amerieiin  lishinK  veHsels,  it  eaii  only  have  the  crt'eet  U>  iiilerfere  with  and  do- 
lav  the  closer  commercial  relations  l>etween  the  United  -'lates  and  Canada 
wni(^h  HO  many  persons  ii>  both  countries  would  be  k\».A  to  siha  uon-iutninated, 
and  If  continueil  will  incviiibly  result  in  a  (freuter  or  less  deiroe  of  nun-inter- 
course for  which  our  laHt  t/onjfress  unanimously  conferred  authority  upon  the 
President. 

lirsolcfd.  That  copies  of  these  resolutions  be  transntitted  to  the  President  and 
Beiiate  and  to  such  other  person;!  oa  the  executive  committee  nttiy  direct. 

H. 

[Resolution  of  Gloucester  Board  of  Trade.] 

OL00CK8TER,  Mxas.,  April  26, 18811. 
To  Hon.  Geobqb  F.  Hoar: 

At  a  meeting  of  the  Gloucester  Board  of  Trade  held  this  raorninR,  .Joseph  O. 
Proctor,  president,  presiding,  the  fiillowlni; resolution  was  presented  by  Charles 
H.  Pew,  esi|..  and  unanimously  adopted  : 

liftolved,  Tliat  the  proposed  Chamberlain  treaty  is  detrimental  to  the  interests 
of  the  United  States  as  a  people,  and  injurious  to  its  honor  and  dignity  as  a  na- 
tion, and  outfht  not  to  be  ratitied. 

CYRUS  STORY,  Stcretary. 


[Resolutions  of  the  American  Fishery  Union.] 

Whereas  the  present  national  interest  in  the  matter  of  the  American  tlsheriea 
has  oftentimes  been  subjected  to  unfavorable  criticism  by  reason  of  the  facts 
being  misunderstood,  the  American  Fishery  Union  desires  to  place  upon  record 
tneir  position  in  the  following  resolution: 

Kenotved,  Thai,  in  common  with  other  producing  industries  of  the  country, we 
ask  of  the  General  Government  neither  subsidy  nor  bounty,  but  simply  equal 
protection. 

Resolved,  That  we  have  neither  asked  nor  sought  the  intervention  of  any  com- 
mission,  mixed  or  otherwise, to  detine  our  just  rights  on  the  high  peas  or  in  for- 
eign ports,  but  have  appealed  to  our  own  Government  to  maintain  the  integ- 
rity aii<i  just  interpretation  of  treaties  and  legislation  under  which  our  business 
and  rights  as  American  citizens  are  afTected. 

lienolved.  That  we  neither  use  nor  desire  to  use  Canadian  waters  for  practical 
flsliing,  but  simply  ask  that  our  commercial  rights  therein  shall  be  delined  by 
our  own  Goverinncnt, ami,  when  so  defined, maintained. 

Urxulved,  That  the  American  ocean  fisheries  are  not  dependent  upon  any  favor 
or  privilege  granted  by  Canada,  but,  on  the  contrary,  the  natural  resources  of 
our  own  country  and  tlie  high  sens  afford  everything  neces.sary  for  the  prosecu- 
tion of  our  business. 

Rcsolvfd,  That  we  cheerfully  conform  to  whatever  construction  our  own  Gov- 
ernment shall  place  upon  existing  treaties  and  legislation,  and  desire  no  new 
treaty  that  shall  dictate  our  national  legislation  or  destroy  the  small  remnant 
of  protection  we  now  have. 

Resolird.  That  the  freedom  of  our  v>r>rts  and  markets  afforded  Canadian  ves- 
sel.s  is  in  marked  contrast  to  that  afforded  American  vessels  in  (Canadian  ports 
when  sailing  under  papers  issued  by  the  United  Slate,.s  Government,  conferring 
all  rights  and  privileges  upon  them,  and  that  a  refusal  on  the  part  of  the  (.-ana- 
dian  Government  to  reeournize  such  papers  bearing  the  .seal  of  the  United  States 
is  an  act  of  non-intercourse,  and  justifies  retaliation. 

J. 

[Notice  of  Louis  Henry  Davies,  extracted  from  Appleton's  Biographical  Dic- 
tionary.] 

Davies,  Louis  Henry,  Canadian  statesman,  born  in  Charlottetown,  Princo 
Edward  Island,  May  4,  184i>.  lie  was  educaleil  at  the  Central  Academy  and 
Prince  of  Wales  College,  Charlottetown,  and  was  admitted  to  the  bar  in  186(5. 
He  was  solicitor-general  of  his  native  province  in  IHO'.l,  and  again  in  1872-'73; 
was  the  leader  of  the  opposition  in  the  Legislative  Assembly  until  September, 
1875,  when  he  became  premier  and  attorney-genera',  which  portfolios  he  retained 
till  1879,  when  his  administration  resigned.  He  was  elected  to  the  local  legis- 
lature in  1872,  and  re-elected  from  time  to  time  till  1879,  when  he  was  defeated. 
In  1882  he  was  elected  to  represent  Queens  County,  Prince  Edward  island, 
In  the  Dominion  Parliament,  and  still  (issfi)  repre.sentsthat  constituency.  Ho 
was  counsel  for  the  tenantry  of  Prince  Edward  Island  before  the  land  com- 
mission, which  sat  in  lS7&-'76  when  the  estates  of  all  proprietors  in  the  Island 


ii| 


u 


A    i 


fc        j 


68 


ilfilii!! 


were  exproprinted  by  ^he  yrovlnce.  He  w  i»  also  one  of  the  counsel  represent" 
Ing  Qruat  Britiviii  before  the  internationi.l  fishery  commission  which  sat  at 
Halifax,  Nova  St^otia,  in  1S77,  under  arliulc»  t>f  the  Washington  treaty.  He  la  • 
Liberal. 

K.- 

[Articles  X  and  XI  of  the  proposed  fisheries  treaty.] 

Akticle  X. 

United  States  fishing^  vessels  enterinsi  the  buys  or  harbors  referred  to  in  Arti- 
cle I  uf  this  treaty,  shall  conform  to  harbor  regrulaMons  common  to  them  and  to 
fishing;  vessels  of  Canada  or  of  Newfoundland. 

They  need  not  report,  enter,  or  clear,  when  piittintj  into  such  bays  or  harbors 
for  shelter  or  repairing  diiinatfes,  nor  when  piittirijjf  into  the  same,  outside  tho 
limits  of  established  port-s  of  entry,  for  the  purpose  of  purchasing;  wood  or  of  ol)- 
taininit  water ;  except  tliat  any  such  vessel  reniainin);  more  tliim  twenty-four 
hours,  exclusive  of  Sundays  and  lej^al  holidays,  within  any  such  port,  or  oom- 
municatiiiK  with  the  shore  therein,  may  be  retiinred  to  report,  enter,  or  clear; 
and  no  vessel  shall  be  excused  hereby  from  giving  due  information  tobDardinjf 
officers. 

They  shall  not  be  liable  inany  sueh  bays  or  harbors  for  compulsory  pilotage; 
nor.  when  therein  lor  tlio  purpose  of  slielter,  of  repairiiijj  damages,  of  pun'lias- 
Ing  wgo(K;  or  of  obtaining  water,  sliail  they  t)e  liable  for  harbor  ilues,  tonnage 
dues,  bu(^  dues,  liglit  dues,  or  other  similar  dues  ;  but  tliis  enumeration  shall 
not  permit  oth'ir  charges  ineonsihtent  wilh  the  enjoyment  of  the  liberties  re- 
served or  secured  by  tlie  convenlion  of  October  20, 1818. 

Article  XI. 

United  States  fishing  vessels  entering  the  ports,  bays,  and  harbors  of  the 
easlern  and  northeastern  coasts  ol  Canada  or  of  the  coast.s  of  Newfoundland 
under  jitrosM  of  weather  «)r  other  casualty  may  unload,  reU)ad,  Iranssliip,  or  sell, 
subject  to  iiisloms  laws  and  regulations,  all  fish  on  l)oard,  when  such  untoa<l- 
ing,  transshipment,  or  sale  is  uia<le  necessary  as  incidental  to  repairs,  and  may 
replenish  out  tils,  provisions,  and  supplies  damaged  or  lost  by  disaster:  and  in 
case  of  rieath  or  sickness  shall  be  allowed  all  needful  facilities,  including  the 
Bhippiiu;  of  crews. 

I.icenties  to  purchase  in  established  ports  of  entry  of  the  aforesaid  gotists 
of  ('anada  or  Newfoundland,  for  the  homeward  voyage,  buch  provisions  and 
8upj>lien  as  are  ordinarily  sold  to  trading  vessels  shall  l^e  granted  to  United 
States  fishing  vessels  in  such  porU4,  promptly  upon  application  a>id  witiiout 
charge,  and  such  vessels,  having  obtained  licenses  in  the  manner  aforcaid, 
shall  also  be  accorded  upon  all  occasions  such  facilities  for  the  purchase  of 
casual  i>r  needful  provisions  nnd  supplies  as  are  ordinarily  granted  to  the 
trading  vessels;  but  such  provisions  or  supplies  shall  not  be  obtained  by  bar- 
ter nor  purchased  for  resale  or  tradle. 


A  list  of  American  vessels  seized,  detained,  or  warned  off  from  the  Canadian 

ports  during  the  last  year. 

1.  Sarah  B.  I'utnam. — Beverly,  iVIass.;  t'haries  Randolph,  master.  Driven 
from  harbor  of  I'ubnico  in  storm  Marcii  22.  ISStj. 

2.  .Joseph  Story,  -(iloiiceslcr,  Mass.  Detained  by  oustorasotticers  at  Baddeck, 
Nova  Scotia,  in  Ao.il,  188fi,  for  alleged  violations  of  the  customs  laws.  Ueleased 
after  lw<iiity-four  nours'  detention. 

.3.  Seth  Htookbridge. — (iloucester,  Mass.;  Anione  Olson,  master.  Warned  off 
from  St.  Andrews,  New  Brunswick,  atiout  April  ;J0,  l.HUd. 

4.  Annie  ^^.  Jordan.— (Jloucestcr,  Mass.;  Alcxan<lcr  Ilaine,  master.  Warned 
ofTatHt.  Andrews.  New  Urunswielt,  -ibout  May  4,  1880. 

5.  David  O.  Adams. — ('louccstcr,  Miiss.;  Aldcn  Kinney,  nutsler.  Seized  at 
Digby,  Nova  Scotia,  May  T,  188(1,  forallejj'ed  violation  of  the  treaty  of  1818,  act  of 
B9  (Jeorge  HI,  and  act  of  ISKt.  Two  suits  l)rougl)t  in  vicc-adniiralty  court  at 
Halifax  for  penalties.  IVolest  liled  May  12.  Suits  pending  still,  and  vessel  not 
yet  released  apparently. 

6.  Husic  Cooper  (Hooper?).— Oloueeslcr?,  Mass.  Itoarded  and  searched, and 
crew  rudely  treated,  by  Canadian  ollloialsin  Causo  Bay.  Nova  Scotia.  May,  1886. 

7.  IC!!a  M.  Doughty. --Portland,  Me. ;  vVarren  A.  Duughty,  nuister.  Heixed  at 
St.  Ann's,  Cape  l:!relon.  May  17,  i88<>,  for  alleged  violation  of  customs  laws. 
Suit  was  instituted  in  vire-admiralty  court  at  Halifax,  Nova  Scotia,  but  was 
subserpiiMitly  abandoned,  and  vessel  released  June  21i,  I88(>. 

8.  .lennie  and  Julia.— Kustpiu-t.  .Me.;  V>'.  II.  Travis,  master.  Warned  off  at 
Digl»y,  NovaSeotia,  by  cusl<.ins  olUcers.  May  Is,  188t). 

l».  Lui'v  Ann. — (iloucester,  Mass.;  .loseph  H,  Smitli,  master.  Warned  off  st 
Yarmouth,  Nova  tScotia,  May  29,  188fi. 


69 


10.  Mkitthew  Keany. — Gloucester,  Mass.  Detained  atSourla,  Prince  Edward 
Island,  one  day  for  alleged  violation  (.fciistonis  laws,  about  May  31,  18s6. 

11.  .lanicM  .\.  Oarfield. — liloiioestfr.  Mar>.s.  Tlireiitened,  about  June  1,  1886, 
■with  seizure  for  havin>{  purchiisef'      lit  in  a  Canadian  harbor. 

12.  Martha  W.  Uradly. — (Jloucc-  Ma-*s.;  J.  K.  Ventier,  master.  Warned  off 
atC'anHu.  Nova  Scotia,"  between  Jui.     I  and  H.  1KS6. 

1.3.  Elizii  Boynton. — GlouccHler,  Mass.;  George  E.  Martin,  master.  Warned  off 
at  (.'anso,  NovaHcotia,  between  June  1  and  9,  IS86.  Then  afterwards  detained 
in  inimncr  not  reported,  and  released  October  25.  M8<). 

11.  Mascot. — (ilonce.ster,  Musm.  ;  Alexander  MeKaehern,  master.  Warned  off 
at  I'ort  Amherst,  Magdalen  Islands,  .June  10,  18H»). 

15.  Thomas  F.  Hayavi I — Gloucester,  .Mass, ;  Junie-«  McDonald,  master.  Warned 
od' lit  Bonne  Hay.  Ne.\ 'f-undland,  .Tune  12.  18H0. 

It).  .lames  O.t'raig. — i^ortlund.  Mo. ;  Webber. :  Mister.  Crew  refused  privilege- 
of  landing  for  necessaries  at  Urooklyn,  Nova  .Seotia,  .tune  15  or  16,  IHHii. 

17.  City  Point. — I'ortland,  Me. ;  Keene,  muster.  Delainedat  Hhelburne,  Nova 
Scotia.  July  2,  1RS6,  for  alleged  violation  of  on-lonis  laws.  Penalty  of  $i(H)  de- 
nuiiided.  Money  deposited,  under  protest,  July  12,  and  in  addition  $VM  costw 
deposited  .Tuly  14.  Fine  and  costs  refunded  July  21.  and  vessel  released  .\ugu.st 
2i'>.  Harbor  dues  exacted  August  2ti,  notwithstanding  vessel  had  been  refused 
all  the  privileges  of  entry. 

M.  C.  P.  Harrington. — Portland,  Me.;  Prellick,  master.  Detained  at  Shel- 
V^nrne,  Nova  Scotia,  July  3,  1886,  for  alleged  violation  of  enstums  laws;  fincii 
f^oo.Tuly  5;  line  deposited,  under  protest,, fuly  12;  $120 cost«  deposited  July  14; 
refunded  July  21,  and  vessel  neleased. 

19.  Hereward. — Glouccsler.  Mass. ;  Mol^onald,  master.  Detained  two  days  nt 
Can.so,  Nova  Scotia,  about  July  3,  18,86,  for  shipping  seamen  contrary  to  port 
laws. 

20.  G.  W.  Cushing. — Portland,  Me.:  Jewett,  ma.ster.  Detained  July  (by  an- 
other report,  June)  3,  1886,  at  iShelburne,  Nova  Scotia,  for  alleged  violation  of 
the  customs  laws;  fined  8t(X);  money  deposited  with  collector  at  Hulifiix  abmit 
July  12  or  14,  and  $120  for  costs  deposited  14th  ;  costs  refunded  July  21,  and  ve.s- 
sel  released. 

21.  Golden  Hind. — Gloucester,  Mass.;  Uuben  Cameron,  master.  Warned  off 
at  Hay  of  <!liuleuis.  Nova  Scotia,  on  or  about  July  23,  1886. 

22.  Novelty. — Portland.  Me.;  II.  A.  .Toyi'e,  master.  Warned  off  at  Picton, 
Nova  Scotia,  .Tune  20,  1886,  where  vessel  h.id  entered  for  coal  and  water;  also 
refused  entrance  at  Amherst,  Nova  .Scotia,  .July  24. 

2i.  N.  .1.  Miller. — Hootli  tiny,  Me.;  Dickson,  muster.  Detained  at  Hopewell 
Caije,  New  Hrunswick,  for  alleged  violation  of  customs  laws,  on  .July  21,  1886. 
Fined  S4(K>. 

24.  itettler. — Gloucester,  Mass.;  A.  F.  Cunninglvam,  master.  Warned  offal 
Can.so,  Nova  Scotia.  June.  18,8ii.  Detained  in  port  of  .Shelb\irne,  Nova  Scotia, 
where  vessel  entered  seeking  shelter  August3, 1886.  Kept  under  guard  all  night 
and  released  on  the  4th. 

2.">.  Caroline  Vought. — Booth  Bay,  Me. ;  Charles  S.  Uecd,  master.  Warned  otT 
at  Paspebiac,  New  Mrnnswiok,  and  refused  w,.ier,  .Vngusl  4  Imsc, 

26.  Shiloh. — Gloucester,  Mass. ;  (Jharles  Nevit,  nnsiei-.  Bo.irded  at  l>iverpool, 
Nova  Scotia.  August  0.  and  subjected  to  rude  surveilhiiice. 

27.  Julia  ICIIen.— Booth  Buy,  Me.;  Bnrncs,  mu-'ler  l!r)arde<l  at  Liverpool, 
Nova  Scotia,  August  0.  1886,  and  subjected  to  a  rutle  surveillance. 

28.  I'reddie  \V.  Alton. — Provincilown,  Mass.;  Alton,  master.  Boarded  at 
Liveriiool.  Nova  .Scotia.  Ang.istO,  18^6,  and  subiected  to  rude  surveillance. 

20.  Howard  Holbrook.- Gloucester,  Mass.  Di'tnined  at  Hawkcsbury,  Cupe 
Breton,  August  17,  1K86,  for  alleged  violation  of  the  customs  liiws.  Kelensed 
August  2i)on  deposit  of  $(iiO.    (J.uestion  of  remission  of  (Ine  still  p»ii<ling. 

30.  A.  I{.  Crittenden. — (Jloncester,  Mass.;  Bain,  nnisler.  Detained  at  llawkes- 
bury.  Nova  Scotia,  .Vugust  27,  1886,  for  alleged  violnti'in  of  customs  laws.  Four 
hundred  dollars  peiuilty  deposited  .\  iigust  28  without  protest,  and  vessel  released. 
Three  hundred  and  soventy-flve  dollars  remitted,  and  a  nominal  liiio  of  S25  im- 
posed. 

31.  Mollie  Adams, — Qlouocstor,  Mass.;  Solomon  .Jacobs,  master.  Warned  oft 
Into  storm  from  Straits  of  Caiiso.  Novu  Scotia,  .August  :!l,  1886. 

32.  Highland  Light. -WelKleet.  Mass.;  J.  U  Uvdcr.  master.  Seized  off  I'last 
Point,  Prince  Kdward  Island,  .September  1,  1886,  while  llshing  within  prohibii)H> 
line.  Suit  for  forfeiture  begun  in  vice  a<imiralty  CQUrtatChailottetowii.  Hear- 
ing set  for  September  20,  but  pi)stponed  to  September  30.  Ma,ster  admltteil  tlio 
charge  and  confessed  judgment.  Vessel  condemned  and  sold  December  14. 
Ptirehased  by  Canadinn  Government. 

33.  I'earl  Nelson.— Provlucetown,  Mass.;  Kemp,  master.  Detained  at  Arichat, 
Cape  Breton,  September  8,  1886,  for  alleged  violation  of  customs  laws.  Released 
September  9,  on  deposit  of  82(K).     Deposit  refiuided  October  26,  1886 

34.  Pioneer.— Gloucester.  Mass. ;  F.  F.  Crucli  »d,  master.  Warned  off  al  Canso, 
Nova  Scotia,  September  9, 1886. 


m 


0 


I 


i 


35.  Everett  Stcnl. — Olouoester,  IMis". ;  CharlciTT.  Forlios,  nin-'tcr  Deta\ti<»d 
at  Slielbunie,  Xova  Hcolia,  Septf'niher  Id.  iHHt),  Top  iille^eil  violation  of  custuius 
laws.     Heleasefi  by  order  froiii  OltawH,  ScpttsinlxT  11,  IHHO. 

3(>.  Moro  Castle. — Olouoestcr.  Mas-i. :  ICilwin  M.  Joyoe,  iim.ster.  Detained  at 
Hawkesbur.v,  Nova  Si-otia.  Septenibcr  II,  isw(>,  on  cliiirpre  of  haviti-r  mmiyrpU'il 
goods  into  tlhenter.  Nova  .^cotia,  in  !KH-l,niKl  also  nf*  violatin^eiistoins  laws.  A. 
deposit  of  8I,')<H)  di^inanded.  Vessel  discliarHod  November 2'.».  18SI>,  on  payment, 
by  agreement,  of  Sl.'K")  to  Canadian  Govern nicnl. 

37.  William  I).  Daisley. — (iloufesier,  Mass.;  .1  lo.  Uorman.  master.  Detained 
at  Honris,  Prince  ICdward  Island,  Ontober  4,  IHSti,  for  alleged  vioialioa  of  cn»- 
totiis  law.     KIned  S-KKl,  and  relea.sed  on  payment;  frC**  of  the  tine  remitted, 

3S.  Laura  Suyw:ird. — (floneester,  Ma.ss.;  .Merleo  liose,  uia-iter  Kefused  priv- 
ilege of  lanrliiig  to  buy  provisions  at  Shelbiirne    Nova  Soolia.  O  tober  5,  l.H,SCi 

39,  Marion  (Jrimes. — (iloueest^r.  Ma,s.s.      Detained  at  Shelburne,  Nova  Scotia, 
Octoljer'.),  for  viulalion  of  (lort  laws  in  failing  lu  repirl  at  cnstom-lioiise  on  en-' 
teriiig.     Fined  SliK),     Money  paid  under  protest  and  ves,sel  released.     Vhw  re- 
mitted Dt'cembcr  4,  IJiSli. 

40,  Jennie  Seaverns — Gloucester,  Mass.;  Joseph  Tiuiper.  master.  Refused 
privilege  of  landing,  and  ve.s^sel  placed  under  guard  at  Liverpool,  Nova  Scotia, 
Octobi-r  '.'K.  l.S.'<f). 

41,  Flving  ScMid.— filoii'.'CstiT.  Mass,  Detained  for  alleged  violation  of  cus- 
toms laws  at  Malifax.  November  1,  or  about  that  time.  Released  November  16, 
188(i. 

4Z.  Sarah  II,  I'rior. — Boston, .Mass.  Refused  the  restoration  of  a  lost  seine, which 
was  found  by  a  Canadian  scln>oner,  Decemlier,  18.%. 

43.  Uoat  (name  unknown), — Stephen  II.  IJalcom,  master,  Ra.stpcrt,  Mo. 
Warned  otlal.si.  Andrews,  New  Brunswick,  July  'J,  18'<0,  with  others. 

44.  T'..'o  small  boats  (unnamed), — (Jlitirles  Smith,  Pembroke,  Me.,  master. 
Seized  at  Ka.st  Qimddy,  New  Brunswick,  September  1,  IHJiij.  for  alleged  viola- 
tion of  customs  laws. 

45.  Druid  (foreign  b'dlt). — Gloucester,  ivraas.  Seized,  warned  o(f,  or  molested 
otherwise  at  some  time  prior  to  September  fi,  188G. 

46.  Abbey  A,  Snow. — Injury  to  this  vessel  has  not  been  reported  to  the  Depart- 
ment of  State. 

47.  Eliza  A.Thomas. — Injury  to  this  vessel  has  not  been  reported  to  the  Do- 
pa  •tment  of  State. 

4.i.  Wide  Awake. — Kastport,  Me. ;  William  Foley,  maater.  Fined  at  L'Rtang, 
Ne'.v  Brunswick,  tf75  for  taking  away  fish  without  getting  a  clearance;  again 
No  'ember  13,  1880,  at  St.  George,  New  Brunswick,  fined  $20  for  similar  olleuse. 
Itj  both  eawes  he  was  procec'Hing  to  obtain  clearances. 

49.  Eliza  A.  Thonies  (schooner). — Portland,  Me.;  K.  S.  Bibbs,  master.  Wrecked 
on  Nova  Scotia  shore,  and  unable  to  obtain  assistance.  Crew  not  permitted  to 
land  or  to  save  anything  until  permission  was  received  from  captain  of  cutter. 
Canadian  ollicials  placed  guard  over  (ish  .saved,  and  everything  saved  fri>ui 
wreck  narrowly  escaped  contl.scation.  (From  sttUemenis  of  C.  D.  Tliomes, 
owner,  Portland,  Me.) 

.'jO.  Christian  Kllsworth  (schooner). — Eastport,  Me.:  James  Ellsworth,  master. 
Entered  Port  Hastings,  Cape  Brelon,  fiu'  wood  ;  anchored  at  10  o'clock,  and  re- 
ported at  custom-house.  At  2  o'clock  was  Iwardoii  by  captain  of  cutter  Hector 
and  ordered  to  sea,  be'iig  forced  to  lejive  without  wood.  In  every  harbor  en- 
tered was  refused  privilcgeof  buying  anything.  Anchored  under  lee  of  land 
in  no  harbor,  but  was  compelled  toenter  at  cusiom-house.  In  no  two  harbors 
were  the  fees  alike.  (From  statements  of  James  Ellsworth,  owner  and  waster, 
£B«tport,  Me.) 

51.  Mary  W.  Whorf  (schooner). — Wellfleet,  Mass.:  Sliiion  Berrio,  master.  In 
July,  1886,  lost  seine  oil'  North  C^ape,  Prince  ICdward  Island,  and  not  allowed  to 
make  any  repairs  on  shore,  causing  a  broken  voyage  and  a  long  delay,  Kan 
short  of  provisions,  and  being  denied  privilege  of  buying  any  on  land,  had  to 
obtain  from  another  American  vessel.  (From  statements  of  Freeman  A.  Snow, 
own"'.  WdlKleet,  Mass,) 

52.  Stowell  .Sherman  (schooner).— Provineetown,  Masi*. ;  S.  F.  Hatch,  master. 
Not  allowed  to  purchase  neee.syary  supplies,  and  obliged  to  rei:M)rt  at  custom- 
houses, situated  at  distant  and  inconvenient  places  ;  ordered  out  of  harbors  in 
stress  of  weather,  namely,  out  of  t'ascuiiipec  Harbor,  Prince  Edward  Island, 
nineteen  hoiirK  after  entry,  a:'d  outof  Malpeque  Harbor.  Prince  Edward  Island, 
tlfteen  hours  after  entry,  wii.  then  blowing  too  hard  to  admit  of  fishing,  l-io- 
turned  liome  with  bri>ken  trip,  (From  slalenicnta  of  Samuel  T.  Hatch,  owiier 
and  imisler,  Provineetown,  Mass.) 

^i.  Walter  L.  Rich  (sehooner).— WclKleet,  Mass.;  Obadiah  Rich,  master.  Oi^ 
dercd  out  of  Malpeqiie,  P.  E.  1.,  In  unsuitable  weather  lor  fishing,  having  been 
In  harbor  only  twelve  hours.  Denied  right  to  purchase  provisions.  For<:ed  to 
enter  at  custom-house  at  Port  Hawkesbury.  C.  I!.,  on  Sunday,  collector  fearing^ 
tbatvewel  would  leav*  before  Monday  and  ho  would  thereby  lose  his  fee.  (From 
BtAiteiaenta  of  Obadiah  Uicb,  owner  anu  .Daater,  WellUeet,  Maaa.) 


M.  Bertha  P.  Nicker^on  C«o1innnev). — IJooth  Pivy.Mf  :  V.  V..  Niclcpfoii.  iiiasler. 
.)«i-asioii';d  <;<>n.~iiierrtble  «>X|)t'nHe  by  Deiug  tli-iii^d  Oiiiuiiliaii  liirlxirn  to  pvt- 
cure  crew,  ami  deliiined  iM  «priiiK  while  wnitinji  f<ir  men  lo  iiinic  from  Nova 
Scotia.     (From  siHiemeiits  of  H.  N'ii'korMon  A;  Sons,  owncrx,  Bootli  Hhv,  Me.) 

55  Newell  B.  [Iiiwi-<  (scIiooiut). — Welltieet,  Ma.sH.  ;  TliniiiMS  <\  Ivi-niiedy, 
Riaater.  lieliiseci  (iriviiPKfi  <>'  buying  pi«>vini(>iis  iti  iH)rt.>4  »>ii  IJiiy  8l.  I^awreni'C, 
and  111  cniiwe<iiieiu!e  olili;;fd  to  leav(>  for  lioine  wiLli  liaUa  car;.;<>.  Made  liarbor 
at  Slii'lhiirtie.  X<>vn  Scolia.  In  liice  dC  ^t<iriii.  iif  5  p.  m,  luid  miflcr  iniinedmtely 
fitarl<Mi  for  eiiitoni-lioiHe,  5  miUs  distant,  nitelinff  cjiptain  f)r  cutter  Terror  on 
way,  to  whom  lie  e.xplaini'd  ornind.  Ou  rt!  urniiij^,  funnd  Iwo  :irme<l  lui-ii  from 
cutter  on  lii.s  ve.-^stl.  At  7  o'clock  next  morniii.ifWuH  oi-derinlto  sea,  Imt  refused 
to  KO  in  the  heavy  fos.  .Vt  i»  o'clo  k  the  fotf  littcfrslljililly,  iind,  11k>u;;!i  tlie  l)a'- 
rometer  wn,«  \'ery  low  and  a  --torm  ininiineiit,  ve.ssel  was  forced  to  leave.  Soon 
met  tlie  lieiivy  ^rsili'.  wliicli  split  sails,  cjiiming  con.sideral)le  <lumHKe.  Captain 
of  Terror  denied  elnim  to  rliilit  of  reiiiuininjf  in  liv.rlior  twenty-four  liour^^. 
(From  ."ttatements  of  T.  O.  Kennedy,  part  owner  and  master,  Well  licet.  Mass.) 

50.  Helen  \<\  Trediok  (.«cliooner). — Capo  Porr>"i»e,  Me.;  II.  .J.  Niimin,  master. 
July  20,  1.SS6,  entered  I'ort  Latour,  N.  H.,  for  shelter  and  wafer.  Whs  ordered 
immediately  to  sea.  (From  statements  of  U.J.  Nunan,  owner  and  master,  ^ape 
Porpoise,  .\H!.) 

57.  Nellie  M.  Snow  (schooner). — Wellfleet,  Mas.s. ;  A.  R.  Snow,  master.  Was 
not  allowed  to  pur<;liasa  provisions  in  any  Canadian  ports,  crto  relit  and  land 
and  ship  tish,  consequently  comiielled  to  leave  for  home  witii  a  broken  trip. 
Nut  permitted  to  renniin  in  ports  longer  tlian  local  Canadian  oHieials  saw  fit. 
(Prom  statements  of  J.  C.  Young,  owner,  Wellfleet,  Mass.) 

58.  fiertradeHnmmors(sehooner). — Wellfleet,  Mass.;  X.S.  Snow,  master.  Re- 
fused privilege  of  purcOuvsini;  provisions,  whicli  resulted  iu  injury  to  voyage. 
Found  harbor  ret;'nlatioiis  uncertain.  Sometimes  could  remain  in  port  twj-nty- 
four  hours,  again  was  orderefl  out  in  three  hours.  (From  statements  of  N.  H. 
Snow,  owner  and  ma.stcr,  Wellfleet.  Mass.) 

59.  Charles  K  Wasliington  (schooner)  — WcIllteet.Masa.;  Je.sseS.  Snow,  master. 
Master  was  informed  by  collector  at  Ship  Harbor,  C.  H.,  that  if  he  lioughl  pro. 
visions,  even  if  actually  necessary,  he  would  be  subject  to  a  fine  of  S^tfK)  lor  each 
ofTense.  Refused  periui.ssion  by  the  <!ollector  at  Souris.  P.  K.  I.,  to  buy  provis- 
ions, and  was  eonipelled  to  return  iiome  Septcmljer  10,  ty--f<»re  close  of  tishini; 
season.  Was  obliged  fo  report  at  custom-house  every  finie  he  entered  a  harbor, 
even  If  only  for  slielter.  Foiuid  no  regularitv  in  the  amount  of  fees  demanded, 
this  being  ajiparently  at  the  oi)tion  of  the  collector.  (From  statements  of  Jesse 
8.  Snow,  owner  and  master,  Wellfleet,  Mass.) 

60.  John  M.  Hall  (schooner) —Provineetown,  Mass.;  N  W.  Freeman,  master. 
Driven  out  of  <>idf  of  Ht.  I,awr'  ice  to  avoid  tine  of  JjiliHlfor  landing  two  men  in 
the  port  of  Malpecjue,  Prince  l-Alwanl  Isla-ml.  Whs  denied  nil  supplies,  except 
■wood  and  water,  in  same  port.  iFrom  statements  of  N.  W.  Freeman,  owner 
and  master,  Provineetown,  Mass.) 

61.  Zephyr  (schooner). —I'astport.  Me.;  Warren  Pulk,  master,  ('lear^d  from 
Eastport  May  81,  IHHi,  under  register  for  West  sles.  Now  lirunswiek,  to  buy 
herrmg.  Collector  refusi  i  to  enter  vessel,  tell  :  g  captain  Hint  if  lie  bought 
fish  which  were  plenty  at  the  time,  tlie  vessel  wuuld  he  seize  t  Returned  to 
Eastport,  losing  about  a  week,  whieli  resulted  in  considerable  loss  to  owner  and 
crew.     (From  statements  of  Guilford  Milcliell,  own'hi,  lOtisiport,  Me.) 

62.  Abdon  Keeno  (schooner). —  Bremen,  Jle.;  WilliumC.  Keene,  master.  Waa 
not  allowed  to  ship  or  land  crew  at  Nova  Scotia  ports,  and  owner  liad  to  pay  for 
their  iransportation  to  Maine.  (From  Hiatenientsof  William  C.  Keene,  owner 
and  master,  Ibenien,  Me.) 

63.  William  Keene  (schooner). — Portland,  Me. ;  Daniel  Kimball,  master.  Not 
allowed  to  .suii>  a  man  or  to  send  a  man  ashore  except  for  water,  at  Liverpool, 
Nova  Scotia,  and  ordered  to  sea  as  soon  as  water  was  obtained.  (From  state- 
ments of  Henry  Trefethen,  owner,  Peak's  Island,  Me.) 

64.  John  Nye  (schooner). — Swan's  Island,  Me.;  W.  h.  Joyce,  master.  After 
paying  entry  fees  and  harbor  duel  was  not  iillowed  to  buy  provisions  at  Mal- 
pe<pje,  Prin«e  Kdward  Island,  iind  had  to  r  'turn  ^  -"me  for  same,  making  n 
broken  trip.  (From  statcmonls  of  W.  L.  Joyce,  owner  and  nuwter,  Atlantic, 
Me.) 

1)5.  Asa  H.  Pervere  (scliooner), —Wellfleet,  Mass.;  A.  B.  Oore,  master.  En- 
tered harbor  for  slielter;  ordered  out  after  twenty-four  hours.  Denied  right  to 
purchase  food.     (From  statements  of  S.  W.  Kemp,  agent,  Wellfleet,  Mass!) 

66.  Natlian  IMeaves  (schooner), — WelUioel,  Mass.;  P,  K,  Hiekuuiii.  master. 
Ran  short  of  provisions, and,  not  being  pcrudtled  to  ituy,  left  for  homi-  with  a 
broken  voyage.  Customs  ofliccf  at  Port  Miilgrave,  Nova  Scotia,  wouhl  allow 
purchase  of  provisions  for  liomewat-"i  passage,  but  not  to  oontitiue  fishing. 
(From  statements  of  Parker  H,  Hickman,  owner  and  master,  Wellfleet,  Mass.) 

87.  Frank  O,  Rich  (schooner).— Wellfleet,  Mass. ;  Charles  A,  (Jortiam,  master. 
Not  permitted  to  buy  provisions  or  to  la.v  in  Onadian  ports  over  twenty-four 
hours.    (From  statements  of  Charles  A.  O'orham,  owner  and  master,  Weilfleat, 


72 


II 


piiil 


88.  Kmma  O.  Curtl«  (sclioorjprV — Provinc«»to\rn,  M:is«. :  Elisha  Klch,  master. 
Not  alluwed  to  purchiise  iirovisiniiH,  and  iHerefore  oblivced  to  return  home. 
(From  statements  of  ICIiHlia  Ulch,  owiieriiinl  iiiiister,  l'roviui?otowii,  Masis.) 

69.  Pleiade.i  (sohooiKT). — Wfllfleet.  Mii.«is. ;  l-".  W.Siiow,  niiuster.  I)riv«'n  from 
harbor  with  in  twenty-four  hours  afterenteriiiK.  Not  allowed  to  ship  or  discharge 
niflii  under  penalty  ot  S4()().  (Krorn  etatentents  of  K.  W.Snow,»>wner  and  mas- 
ter, Welllloea,  Ma.^H.) 

70.  OliarlesF.  Atwood  (scliooner). — Wellfleet,  Mass.:  Michael  Burrows,  master. 
Captain  was  not  porniitted  to  relit  veHset  or  to  buy  supplies,  and  wlion  out  of 
fiood  lirtd  to  return  home.  Found  Canadians  disposed  to  harass  liitn  and  put 
him  to  many  ineonvenienuies.  Not  Hllmved  to  laml  seine  on  Canadian  sliore 
for  purpose  of  re|^ni^ill^t  same.  (From  statements  of  Michael  Burrows,  owner 
and  master,  WelUleet,  Ma-ss.) 

71.  Ciertie  May  (schooner). — Portland,  Me. ;  I.  Douu'hty,  master.  Not  allowed. 
tbuuKl>  provided  with  permit  to  touch  and  trade,  to  pureliase  fresh  bait  in  Nova 
Scotia,  and  driven  from  harbors.  (From  slate uients  of  Charles  F.  OuptiU, 
owner,  Portland,  Me.) 

72.  Margaret  8.  Smith, (schooner). —i'ortland.  Me.;  I^incohi  W.  Jewett,  mas- 
ter. Twice  compelled  to  return  home  from  Bay  of  St.  Lawrence  witli  broken 
trip,  not  bein<  able  to  .secure  provisions  to  continue  fisninij.  Incurred  many 
petty  inconveniences  in  repard  to  customs  regulations.  (From  statements  of 
A.  iM.  Smith,  owner,  Portland,  Me.) 

73.  Elsie  M.  Suiitli  (scluionert.—Portlnnil,  Me.;  Fnoch  Bultjer,  master.  Came 
home  witli  half  fare,  not  beins  able  to  kcI  provisions  Icj  continue  fishing. 
Lost  seine  in  a  heavy  gale  rather  than  beannoyerl  l)y  euslonis  reffulutions  when 
Beeking  shelter.     (From  statements  of  A.  .VL  Smith,  I'orlland.  Me.) , 

74.  Fannie  A. Si>urling(schooner). — I'ortland.Mc.;  (;.tleb  Parri-*,  master.  Sub- 
ject to  many  annoyances,  and  obliged  to  return  lionie  with  a  half  fare,  not  being 
able  to  procure  provisions.  (From  statements  of  .\.  .M.  Smith,  owner,  Portland, 
Me.) 

75.  Carleton  Bell  (schooner). — Booth  Bay,  Me. ;  .S.'th  W.  JCldridge,  muster. 
Occasioned  considerable  expense  by  bein^"  denied  ri^^ht  to  procure  crew  in  Ca- 
radinn  harbors,  and  detHiniMJ  in  spring  while  wailing  for  men  to  oinne  from 
Nova  Scotia.  (From  statements  of  S.  Nickerson  &  Sons,  owners.  Booth  Bay, 
Me.) 

76.  Ahliie  M.  Oeering  (schooner). — Portland,  Me. ;  Kmory  Gott,  master  Not 
being  able  to  procure  provisions, obi isred  to  return  home  with  a  third  q^  a  fare 
of  mackerel.     (From  statements  of  A.  M.  Smith,  owner,  Portland,  Me.; 

77.  Cora  Loni.sa  (schooner). — Booth  Ba.v.  Me.;  Olied  Harris,  easter.  Could 
get  no  provisions  in  Canadian  ports,  ancl  had  to  return  home  before  getting 
f'lll  fare  offish.  (From  stall  men's  of  S.  Nickerson  &  ."^ons,  owners,  B,  Ih  Bay, 
Me.) 

7H.  Eben  l>ale  (schooner). — North  Haven,  Me. ;  R.  O.  Rabbid.ge,  master.  Not 
perniitU'd  I.)  bu.v  bail,  ice, or  to  trade  in  any  way.  Oriven  out  of  harbors,  and 
nnreasiinnble  restrictions  whenever  near  the  land.  (From  statements  of  U.  O. 
Babliidge,  owner  and  master.  Pulpit  Harbor,  Me.) 

7!*.  (Jbarles  Haskell  («cho<)ner). — North  llavcn,  Sle. ;  Daniel  Thurston, master. 
Oliligid  to  leave  (<  nil"  of  .St.  Lawrence  at  considerable  loss,  not  being  allowed  to 
buy  provisions.     (From  statementsof  <'.  .S.  Staples,  owner.  North   Haven,  Me.) 

H{).  Willie  Parkman  (schooner). — iS'orth  Haven,  Me. ;  William  H.  Banks,  mas- 
ter. Unable  to  get  sui)plie,s  while  in  <.iul:'  of  .St.  Lawrence,  which  necessitated 
returning  home  at  great  loss,  with  h  liroken  voyage,  (.From  statements  of 
Willi;im  H.  Banks,  owner  and  master.  North  Flavon,  Me.) 

8L  D.  I).  Geyer  (■ichooner). — Portland,  Me.;  .John  K.  Craig»  master.  Jibing  re- 
fused privilege  of  touching  at>  a  Nova  .Scotia  port  to  take  on  resident  crew  al- 
ready engaged,  owner  whs  obliged  to  provide  passage  for  men  to  i^ortland,  at 
considerable  cost,  cjiusiiig  great  loss  of  time.  (From  statements  of  F.  H.  .for- 
dan,  owner,  Portland,  Me.) 

82.  Good  Templar  (s(^hooner). — Portland,  Me.;  EliasTarlton,  master.  Touched 
at  La  Have.  Nova  Scotia,  to  take  on  crew  already  engaged,  but  was  refused 
privilege  andordered  to  proceed.  The  men  being  indispensable  to  voyage,  had 
them  <lelivercd  on  board  oiilsideof  ;j-mile  limit  by  a  Nova  .Scotia  boat.  (From 
statementsof  Henry  Trefethen,  owner.  Peaks  Islatnl,  Maine.) 

8.'}.  ICddie  Davhison  (schooner). — Wellfleet,  Mass.;  .John  D.  Snow,  master. 
June  12,  IHHt^,  touched  at  ('ape  Island,  Nova  Scotia,  hut  was  not  permitted  to  take 
on  part  of  crow  ;  boar<led  by  tiusloms  oHleer  and  ordered  to  sail  within  twenty- 
four  hours;  not  allowed  to  buy  food  in  ports  on  (Siilf  of  St.  Lawrence.  (From 
etatements  of  John  D.  Snow,  owner  and  master,  Welineet.  Mass.) 

84.  Alice  P.  Higgins  (schooner). — WelUleet,  Mass.;  Alv'n  W.  Cobb,  master. 
Driven  from  harbors  twice  in  stress  of  weather.  (From  stuvementH  of  Alvin  W. 
Cobb,  master,  Wellfleet.  Moss.) 

85.  Cvnosure  (schooner). — Booth  Ba.v,  Me. ,  L.  Rush,  masten  Wasohliged  to 
retnrn  home  l>efore  seourlng  a  full  cargo,  not  being  permitted  to  purchase  pro- 
▼ifsions  in  Nova  .Suotia.  (From  atatementa  of  8.  Nickerson  &  Sons,  owners. 
Booth  Bay,  Mo.) 


73 


Me.) 
iias- 
itcd 
of 


86.  Naiad  (schooner). — Lubeo,  Me  Walter  Kennedy,  master.  Presented 
frontier  license  (heretofore  acceptable)  on  arriving  at  Ht.  George,  New  Bruns- 
wick, but  collector  would  not  recognize  same ;  was  couijielled  to  return  to  East- 

fiort  and  clear  under  register  before  being  allowed  to  purchaHe  herring,  thus 
o.iing  one  trip.     (From  statements  of  Walter  Kennedy,  uiaster,  Lubec,  Me.) 

87.  LouL^a  A.  Grout  (schooner). — Provincetown,  Mass. :  .losepli  flatch,  jr., 
master.  Took  f)ermit  to  touch  atid  trade  ;  arrived  at  St.  Peter's,  Cape  llreton, 
in  afternoon  of  May  19,  1886;  enteredandoleared  accordingto  law;  wasobliged 
to  take  inexpertencied  men  at  their  own  prices  to  completw  Ashing  crew,  to  get 

.to  sea  hefore  the  arrival  of  a  seizing  oflicer  who  had  started  from  Straits  of 
Cansoat  5  o'clock  same  afternoon  in  search  of  vessel,  having  been  advised  by 
telegraph  of  the  ahipjiing  of  men.  (From  slatements  of  Joseph  Hatch,  jr., 
owner  and  master,  Provincetown,  Ma.SuS  ) 

88.  Lottie  B.Hopkins  (schooner). — Vinal  Haven,  Me. ;  Kmery  J.  Ho|)k!ns, 
master.  Refused  permission  to  buy  any  article  of  food  in  Canadian  ports.  OI>- 
tained  shelter  in  harbors  only  by  entering  at  custom-house.  (From  statement 
of  Emery  .1.  Hopkins,  North  Haven,  Me.) 

89.  Florine  F.  Nickerson  (schooner). — Cliathiim.  Mans.;  Nathaniel  E.  Eldridge, 
master.  Engaged  fisliermen  for  vessel  at  Liverpool,  Nova  Scolia,  but  action  of 
Canadian  Goverimient  neces.sitated  the  paying  of  their  trunr4p>ortation  to  the 
United  States  and  loss  of  time  to  vessel  while  waiting  their  arrival ;  otherwise 
would  have  called  for  them  on  way  to  Hshing  grounds.  Ueturning,  touched  at 
Liverpool,  but  immediately  on  anchoring  Canadian  ot>lcials  came  al>(>ard  and 
refused  permission  for  men  to  go  ashure.  Captain  at  once  signittcd  his  inten- 
tion of  immediately  proceeding  on  passage,  but  ottlccr  prevented  his  de)>arture 
until  he  had  reported  at  custom-house,  vessel  being  thereby  detained  two  days. 
(From  stalciiienl  of  Kendrick  <$t  Hearse,  owners,  South  Harwich,  Mass.i 

SK).  B.  B.  U.  (sloop). — lOu.stport,  >re.;  George  W.  ("opp,  master.  Oblige<i  to  dis- 
continue bii.siness  of  buying  sardine  herring  in  New  Umiiswick  ports  for  Kast- 
port  canneries,  aa  local  customs  regulations  were,  during  the  season  of  IH8ti, 
made  so  exacting  that  it  was  impos.sible  to  comply  with  them  without  risk  of 
the  Hsh  becoming  stale  and  spoiled  by  detention.  (From  stu'  aments  of  George 
W.  Copp,  master,  Eastport,  Me.) 

91.  Sir  Knight  (schooner). — Sonthport,  Me.;  Mark  Rand,  master.  Compelled 
to  pay  transportation  for  crew  from  Nova  Scotia  to  Maine,  tl'e  vessel  not  being 
allowed  to  call  at  Nova  Scotia  ports  for  them  on  her  way  to  the  tishing  grounds. 
(From  statements  of  William  T.  Maddocks,  owner,  Sonthport,  Mo.) 

92.  Uncle  Joe  (schooner). — Sonthport,  Me.;  J.  W.  Pierce,  master.  Compelled 
to  pay  transiiortation  for  crew  from  Nova  Scotia  to  Maine,  the  ves.sel  not  Ixiiig 
allowed  to  call  at  Nova  Scotia  ports  for  themon  her  way  totlie  I'lsliiiig  grounds. 
(From  statements  of  William  T.  Maddo<'k8,  owner.  .Sonthport,  Me.) 

93.  WillieG.  (schooner). — Sonthport,  Mo.;  Albert  F.  Orne,  master.  Compelled 
to  pay  transportation  for  crew  from  Nova  Scotia  to  Maine,  the  vessel  not  being 
allowed  to  call  at  Nova  Scotia  ports  for  them  on  her  way  to  the  tishing  grounds. 
(From  statements  of  William  T.  Maildocks,  owner,  Sonthport,  Me.) 

91.  Lady  Elgin  (schooner). — Southport,  Me.;  George  W.  I'ierce, master.  Com- 
pelled to  pay  transportation  for  crew  from  Nova  Scotia  to  Maine,  the  vessel  not 
being  allowed  to  call  at  .Nova  Scotia  ports  for  them  on  her  way  to  the  tishing 
grounds.     (I'-roin  statements  of  William  T.  ^^alldocks,  owner,  Sonthport,  Me.) 

95.  John  H.  Kennedy  (schooner).— Vortlninl,  Me.;  I)a\id  l)ou.glierty,  master. 
Called  at  a  Nova  Scotia  port  for  halt,  but  left  without  obtaining  same,  teariiu.; 
seizure  and  fine,  returning  home  with  a  broken  voyage.     .\t  a  Newfoundland 

Sort  was  charged  ?IC  liglit-honse  dues,  giving  draft  on  owners  for  same,  whicli, 
eiug  excessive,  they  refused  to  pay.  (From  statements  of  lixO.  Willard,  owner, 
Portland,  Me.) 

9t'>.  Ripley  Ropes  (schooner),— Southport,  Me.;  C.  E.  Hare,  master.  Vessel 
ready  to  sail  when  tehTiram  f-om  aulhoritlrs  nt  Ottawa  refused  |)erniission  to 
tf)uch  at  Canadian  ports  to  !?hip  men;  consciiucntly  obligid  to  pay  for  their 
transportation  to  Maine,  and  vessel  <lctained  while  awaiting  llieir  arrival. 
(From  statements  of  Freeman  Orne  A.  Son,  owners,  South|>orl,  Me.) 

97.  .fennie  Armstrong  (scliooner). —Sonthport,  Me.;  .\.0.  Webber,  master.  Ves- 
sel ready  to  sail  when  telegram  from  authorities  of  Ottawa  refused  permission 
to  touch  at  Canadian  ports  to  ship  men  ;  eonse<inently  ol)liue<l  to  pay  for  tbeir 
transportation  to  Maine,  and  vessel  detained  while  awaiting  their  arrival. 
(From  statements  of  Freeman  Orne  A  Son.  owners,  Southport,  Me.l 

f>8.  Vanguard  (schooner). — Southport,  Me, ;  C.  C.  Dyer,  master.  Vessel  ready 
to  sail  when  telegram  from  authorities  refused  permission  to  touch  at  Canadian 
ports  to  ship  men;  consequently  obliged  to  pay  for  their  transportation  to 
Maine,  and  ves.sel  detained  while  awaiting  their  arrivaL  (From  statements  of 
Freeman  Orne  &  Hon,  owners,  Sonthport,  Me.) 

99.  Electric  Flash  (schooner). — North  Haven,  Me. ;  Aaron  Smith,  master.  TTn- 
uble  to  obtain  supplies  in  ('anadian  ports  and  obliycd  to  return  home  before 
obtaining  full  cargo,  (From  statements  of  Aaroa  Hinith,  master  and  agent. 
North  Haven,  Me.) 


r 


74 

100.  IJanlel  Simmons  (scliooner).— Swan's  Islnnil,  Me.;  John  A.  Gott,  master. 
Compelled  to  go  without  necessary  outHtwIiile  HsliinK  i"  Gulf  of  St.  Lawrence. 
(From  statements  of  M.  Stinipson,  owner,  Swan'.H  lslan<t.  Me.) 

101.  Grover  Cleveland  (schooner). — Uoston,  Mass. ;  Georiie'Lakeman,  master. 
Compelled  to  return  home  with  only  partial  fare  of  mackerel,  being  refuse'.^ 
dupplies  In  Canadian  ports.  (From  statements  «f  B.  F.  Oe  Butts,  owner.  Boa- 
ton,  Mass.) 

102.  Andrew  Burubam  (schooner).— Boston,  Moss. ;  Nathan  F.  Blake,  master. 

M. 

[Revised  Statutes  of  Canada,  chapter  91.    An  aet  reapectinij  fishing  by  foreign 

ve8!«els.] 


'm 


2.  Any  commissioned  officer  of  Her  Majesty's  navy  serving  on  board  of  any 
vessel  of  lleriMajesty's  navy  cruising  and  l>eingin  the  waters  of  Canada  for  the 
purpose  of  altordint;  protection  to  ller  Majesty's  subjects  euKUt^ed  in  the  flsli- 
eries,  or  any  commissioned  officer  of  Her  Majesty's  navy,  fishery  officer,  or 
stipendiary  maK!s*rate  on  board  of  any  ves.sel  belonging  to  or  in  the  service  of 
thegovernment  of  Canada  and  emplo.vedln  the  service  of  protecting  the  fislier- 
ies,  or  any  officer  of  the  customs  of  Canada,  sherilf,  justice  of  tlie  peace,  or  other 
per.son  duly  commissioned  for  that  purpose,  may  go  on  hoard  of  any  ship,  vessel, 
or  boat  within  any  Iiarlmr  iu  Canada  or  hovering  in  British  waters  within  3 
marine  miles  of  any  of  the  coasts.  Imys,  creeks,  or  iiarliors  in  Canada,  and  stay 
on  board  so  long  as  she  remains  witliin  such  harbor  cr  distance. 

3.  Any  one  of  the  officers  or  persons  liereinbefore  mentioned  may  bring  any 
ship,  vessel,  or  boat,  being  witliin  any  harbor  in  Canada,  Or  hovering  in  British 
waters  witliin  3  marine  miles  of  any  of  the  coasts,  bays,  creeks,  or  harbors  in 
Canada,  into  port  and  search  her  cargo,  and  may  also  examine  tlie  master  upon 
oath  touching  the  cargo  and  voyage;  and  if  the  master  or  person  in  command 
does  not  truly  answer  the  questions  put  to  him  in  sucli  exumination.  he  shall 
Incur  a  penalty  of  S40(»;  and  if  such  ship,  vessel,  or  boat  is  foreign,  or  not  navi- 
gated according  to  the  laws  of  the  United  Kingdom  or  of  Cuiiuda,  and  (a)  lias 
been  foiind  iisiiing,  or  preparing  to  tisli,orto  liavebeen  Hshingin  British  waters 
within  3  marine  miles  of  any  of  the  coasts,  bays,  creeks,  or  hnrlwrs  of  Canada, 
not  included  within  the  hbove-nientioned  limits,  without  a  license,  or  after  the 
expiration  of  tlie  term  named  in  the  last  license  granted  to  such  sliip,  vessel,  or 
boat  under  the  first  section  of  this  act,  or{b)  lias  entered  sucli  waters  lor  any  pur- 
pose not  permitted  by  treaty  or  convention,  or  by  any  law  of  the  United  King- 
dom or  of  Canada  for  the  time-being  in  force,  such  sliip,  vessel,  or  boat,  andtha 
tackle,  rigging,  apparel,  furniture,  stores,  and  cargo  thereof  sltall  be  forteited. 

4.  All  goods,  ships,  vessels,  and  boats,  and  the  tackle,  rigging,  apparel,  furni- 
ture, stores,  and  cargo  liable  to  forfeiture  under  this  act  may  be  sei/^ed  and  se- 
cured by  any  officers  or  persons  mentioned  in  the  second  section  of  this  act ;  and 
every  person  opposing  any  officer  or  person  in  tlie  execution  of  liia  duty  under 
thisoct,  or  aidingor  al)ettinK  any  other  person  in  any  such  opposiliajH,  is  guilty 
of  a  misdemeanor,  and  liable  to  a  fine  of  S<iUO  and  to  two  years'  imprisonment. 


6.  All  goods,  vessels,  and  boats,  and  the  tackle,  rigging,  apparel,  furniture, 
stores,  and  cargo,  condemned  as  forfeited  under  this  act,  shall  be  sold  by  |iul>- 
lie  auction,  by  direction  of  tlie  officer  who  lias  the  custody  tliere«)f  under  the 
provisions  of  the  next  preceding  section  of  this  act,  and  under  reguliitions  made, 
from  time  to  time,  l>y  the  governor  in  council;  and  the  proceeds  of  every  such 
sale  shall  be  subject  to  the  control  of  the  minister  of  rimrine  and  fisheries,  who 
shall  first  pay  thereout  all  necessary  costs  and  expenses  of  custody  and  sale,  and 
the  governor  in  council  mny,fi'oiii  lime  to  tinic,apportiui>  tlaec-('ourth.s,or  less, 
of  the  net  remainder  among  the  officer.s  and  ercw  of  any  of  Her  Majesty's  ships 
or  Canadian  Government  vessel  from  on  hoard  of  which  the  seizure  was  made. 
Bis  he  thinks  right— reserving  to  the  Crown  and  paying  over  to  the  minister  or 
finance  and  receiver-gencnl  at  least  one-fourth  of  such  net  remainder,  to  form 
part  of  the  consolidated  revenue  fund  of  Canada;  but  the  governor  in  council 
may  nevertheless  direct  that  any  good  vessel  or  boat,  and  the  tackle,  rintint, 
apparel,  furniture,  stores,  and  cargo,  seized  and  forfeited  shall  be  destroyeu  or 
be  reserved  for  the  public  service. 

«  «  •  «  •  «  « 

10.  If  a  dispute  arises  as  to  whether  any  seizure  has  or  has  not  been  legally 
roade,  or  as  to  whether  the  person  who  seized  was  or  was  not  authorized  to 
hi'ize  under  this  act,  oral  evidence  may  be  taken,  and  the  burden  of  proving  tlie 
i  li'gality  of  ihe  seizure  shall  lie  upon  the  owner  or  claimant. 

It.  Xo  eluim  to  anything  seized  under  this  act  and  returned  into  any  court  of 
VH'.e-admirally  for  adjudication  shall  be  admitted  unless  the  claim  is  entered 
ii...l<ir  oa'.h,  with  the  name  of  the  owuer,  his  residence  and  occupulioD,  and  the 


75 

description  .  the  property  claimed,  which  oath  shall  be  made  by  the  owner, 
lilfl  attorney  or  agent,  and  to  the  best  of  his  knowledge  and  belief. 

13.  No  writ  shall  be  sued  out  against  any  officer  or  oihor  person  authorized 
to  seize  under  this  act  tor  anytliing  done  under  this  act  until  one  month  after 
notice  m  writing  has  been  delivered  to  him  or  left  at  his  ususvi  place  of  abode  by 
is  iVl"°"  intending  to  sue  out  such  writ,  his  attorney  ora-eni,,  in  which  notice 
shall  be  contained  the  cause  of  action,  the  name  and  place  of  abode  of  the  person 
^.,=J!,^°  H'l'"^  V'®„*^"*''5'  ^^'^  **/  ^'*  attorney  or  agent,  and  no  evidence  of  any 
cause  of  action  shall  be  admitted  exceptsuch  as  is  contained  in  such  notice. 
tu  '  f  f  y  ^".'^"  action  shall  be  brought  within  three  ihonths  after  the  cause 
tnereoi  uas  arisen. 

-3.^f  *'"  any  information  or  suit  brought  to  trial  under  this  act  on  account  of 
any  seizure,  judgment  is  given  for  the  claimant,  and  the  court  or  judge  certifies 
Uiat  there  was  probable  cause  for  seizure,  the  claimant  shall  not  be  entitled  to 
costs,  and  the  person  who  made  the  seizure  shall  not  be  liable  to  any  indictment 
or  suit  on  account  thereof;  and  if  any  suit  or  prosecution  is  brought  against  any 
person  on  account  of  any  seizure  under  this  act,  and  judgment  is  given  against 
him.  and  the  court  or  ludge  certifies  that  there  was  probable  causl  for  the  seiz- 
ure,  the  plaintiff,  besides  the  thing  seized  or  ita  value,  shall  not  recover  more 

Lo^  hi  fln'la  ^TJ'fh ''•  ""o,^  ''''i"  ''*'*  recover  any  costs,  and  the  defendant  shall 
not  be  tinea  more  than  20  cents. 


